Beck On The 'Friends of Abe' And The Hollywood 'Blacklist' Of Conservatives

Glenn Beck had several reasons to be in California last weekend.  The first was to speak at the Summer Retreat for David Horowitz’s Freedom Center and the second was to address the secretive group of Hollywood conservatives known as "Friends of Abe."

Friends of Abe regularly hosts events featuring conservative leaders like Michele Bachmann and Ted Cruz and others, but information about the group is notoriously hard to come by because members supposedly fear that their careers in the entertainment industry will be ruined if it is known that they are conservative.

This, of course, perfectly mirrors Beck's own feelings of persecution and grandiose sense of self-importance, so he was predictably amazed and encouraged by the gathering, declaring that the people involved are "a powerful group of heroes" who are "really, truly making history" and will one day have movies made and books written about the bold stand that they took against this anti-conservative "blacklist."

Beck then lambasted Hollywood for "blacklisting" conservatives in this way, given the industry's own experience with not only McCarthyism but also past societal and industry pressure that forced gay actors and actresses to remain in the closet.

For Hollywood to now "blacklist" conservatives, Beck said, is "like if a bunch of Holocaust survivors started rounding up Germans and putting them in a concentration camp":

Two Russian Officials On Sanctions List Closely Involved In Upcoming World Congress Of Families Summit

Two Russian officials whose places in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle have made them subject to US economic sanctions are also intimately involved in the upcoming World Congress of Families summit at the Kremlin, organized by the Illinois-based World Congress of Families and supported by a number of prominent US Religious Right groups.

It’s hardly a coincidence that two major backers of the summit would end up on the sanctions list. As we have reported, Putin and his allies have leaned on social conservative causes, especially opposition to gay rights, to solidify support at home and provoke anti-EU hostility in Ukraine. It’s not surprising that the World Congress of Families summit, which brings together anti-gay and anti-choice groups from around the world, has proved a popular cause among some of the Russian president’s greatest allies.

Yelena Mizulina, a member of parliament who was the force behind Russia’s infamous “gay propaganda” ban, was among the seven Russian officials on whom the White House imposed economic sanctions last Monday. Mizulina has worked closely with the organizers of the upcoming World Congress of Families summit: She joined an organizing meeting for the event in October and is scheduled to lead a panel discussion on “pro-family legislation” at the conference.

Mizulina has made no secret of the fact that her focus on opposing gay rights is closely intertwined with her interest in distancing Russia from the United States and the European Union. At an event in Moscow in June, which was also attended by the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, Mizulina framed Russia’s crackdown on gay rights as a battle between Russia’s protection of “traditional family identity” and a decadent Europe that has embraced “sexual minorities”:

[T]oday the whole world is looking at Russia with hope that Russia will hold fast and not give in to this unusual pressure from European governments and will conserve its own traditional family identity. It’s perfectly clear that Europe today, faced by the collision of two very serious values—the right of children to a family and the right of sexual minorities to a family—is making its choice in favor of sexual minorities.

A few days after the White House announced its sanctions on Mizulina, it imposed sanctions on a number of other Russian officials, including Vladimir Yakunin, a close ally of Putin who is also a major funder of the World Congress of Families summit.

At a recent press conference promoting the upcoming gathering, World Congress of Families director Larry Jacobs went out of his way to thank a list of the event’s major sponsors, including two groups connected to Yakunin: the Saint Andrew the First-Called Foundation, which is headed by Yakunin, and the Sanctity of Motherhood program, which is run by Yakunin’s wife Natalia Yakunina. Both Yakunin and Yakunina are on the “Russian organizing committee” for the WCF summit, and brochure for the event features the two alongside Putin as staples of the “pro-life and pro-family movement in Russia."

As Wayne Besen pointed out shortly before the sanctions were imposed, Yakunin is “one of Russia’s most outspoken America-bashers.”

So far, just one American group, Concerned Women For America, has dropped out of the summit in response to Russia’s siezure of Crimea. (Although it’s unclear of CWA senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse, who is also a member of the board of the World Congress of Families, will remain involved.) We wonder if the presence of two of the event’s organizers on the sanctions list will cause any other American groups involved in the event – including Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Christian Broadcasting Network – to drop their support as well.

Glenn Beck Didn't Like 'Noah' Because 'I Don't Believe In Rock People'

On Friday's radio broadcast, Glenn Beck told his audience not to see the new "Noah" movie because it was "dangerous disinformation," despite the fact that he had not actually seen the film. As luck would have it, Beck was in Los Angeles over the weekend and was invited by the film's producers to attend a private screening, which he did ... and he really hated it, mostly because he found it to be totally ridiculous and unbiblical.

In particular, he was put off by the "giant rock people" that helped Noah with his tasks in the movie, who were supposed to represent the Nephilim (giant offspring of angles and human females mentioned in Genesis 6).

Beck, who just last year put on a giant stage production centered around an anthropomorphic moon, played by Beck himself, telling the story of America, found these "giant rock people" to be just too absurd and far-fetched.

"Rock people!" Beck said in disbelief, adding that he was sure that critics of religion like Bill Maher would point out that it seems odd to object to "rock people" if one is willing to accept the existence of a "sky God," but this is different.

"Yeah, but I don't believe in rock people, okay? I have a hard time with that one," Beck declared.

On top of that, the movie was bad because "it treats a prophet of God like a lunatic":

CWA: Youth Support For Gay Rights Shows Their 'Ignorance'

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America knows the real reason why young voters are more likely to favor marriage equality and vote for Democratic candidates like President Obama, and it’s apparently because they’re just not smart enough to know better.

Crouse writes today in the Christian Post that young adults are “without a solid foundation” and “fall prey to the fads and changing winds of cultural trends,” transforming American youth into “a reliably leftist demographic.”

“They are also one of the best-educated generations in American history – a finding that many consider highly questionable, given their appalling ignorance both of history and contemporary events,” Crouse writes, lamenting that “this rootless generation, with little grounding in historical knowledge or moral commitments, is ripe for the demagoguery of community organizers and activists pushing special agendas.”

She adds that young voters don’t realize that gay rights are harmful to freedom, arguing that marriage equality laws “censure those whose religious beliefs condemn this unfortunate change in the definition of marriage. Marijuana legalization, the same. Life without boundaries for them, but not for the rest of us.”

According to exit polling data, in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, Millennials (young adults 18 to 33) were a reliably leftist demographic, both in their voting and their views. Now, it appears that – even though they remain decidedly liberal on political and social issues – this influential group of Americans is up for grabs in the 2014 and 2016 elections. That is to say that no specific politician or ideology can count on their support.



One of the troubling findings in the survey is that “about three-in-ten (29%) say they are not affiliated with any religion.” Coupled with their lack of political affiliation, this rootless generation, with little grounding in historical knowledge or moral commitments, is ripe for the demagoguery of community organizers and activists pushing special agendas. For example, Millennials see no inconsistency in adamantly advocating their own freedom to express their position and, at the same time, pushing for activist government policies to promote same-sex marriage and censure those whose religious beliefs condemn this unfortunate change in the definition of marriage. Marijuana legalization, the same. Life without boundaries for them, but not for the rest of us.

… Without a solid foundation – a worldview of their own – Millennials fall prey to the fads and changing winds of cultural trends. Only one-quarter (26%) of Millennials are married (in contrast to other generations when at their age – Gen X 36%, Baby Boomers 48%, Silent Generation 65%). Obviously, the lack of marriage does not mean a lack of sexual activity; cohabitation and random hook-ups are substitutes for marriage, with predictably bad measurable outcomes for both men and women.

In spite of their support for big government, liberal social views, lack of patriotism, general optimism, and personal support for President Obama (though that is declining), Millennials, like the three generations preceding them, disapprove of single parenting and believe that it is bad for society.

Pew explains some of the Millennial views by their racial diversity: “About four-in-ten members of the millennial generation are non-white – a much larger percentage than in older age groups.” They are also one of the best-educated generations in American history – a finding that many consider highly questionable, given their appalling ignorance both of history and contemporary events.

Kobach Claims Voting Rights Groups Want 'Loosey-Goosey' System So They Can 'Benefit From That Fraud'

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the architect of anti-immigrant and voter suppression measures throughout the country, won a big victory last week when a federal court allowed Kansas and Arizona to require extra proof of citizenship from people registering to vote with federal voter registration forms.

Kansas’ strict new documentation requirement – which requires residents to produce a birth certificate, passport, or similar document in order to register to vote – has thrown the voter registrations of 16,000 people into limbo, a problem that Kobach has consistently laughed off.

In an interview with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week, Kobach insisted that voting rights advocates on the “radical left” have “great difficulty demonstrating that it’s actually harder” to register to vote with his arcane new system. In fact, he alleged that voting rights groups “just want the loosey-goosey kind of system that allows fraud to occur because they perhaps feel they can benefit from that fraud.”

To illustrate the urgent importance of blocking tens of thousands of people from the ballot box in order to prevent noncitizens from voting, Kobach produced “a couple of recent examples” of such fraud occurring. One such “recent example” was from 1997 – or 17 years ago. The other – a tale of “50 Somali nationals” voting in a Democratic primary in Kansas city, Missouri in 2010 – never actually happened. When Kobach brought up the same anecdote in an op-ed last year, the Kansas City Star looked into it and found that a court had dismissed charges about the illegal votes, finding that “credible evidence proves that there was no voter misconduct and there was no voter fraud with regard to this election.”

Interestingly, there was proven voter fraud in that 2010 Kansas City election. One candidate’s uncle and aunt pleaded guilty for fraud for voting for their nephew even though they lived outside of his district. That fraud would not have been prevented by Kobach’s proof-of-citizenship law.

Yet, Kobach is so insistent that the “radical left” wants to use noncitizen voters to steal elections that he’s willing to put the voter registrations of tens of thousands of Kansans on hold in the name of preventing it.

Kobach: We’ve got cases going back years in this country of aliens usually being manipulated by someone who’s trying to steal an election or trying to influence an election. They’re told, ‘hey you can vote,’ they may not know that they’re breaking federal and state law, but they go ahead and register to vote.

So, I can give you a couple of recent examples in our neck of the woods. In Kansas City, Missouri, in 2010, in the Democrat primary for the state legislature, about 50 Somali nationals were registered to vote and persuaded, coached, to vote for one candidate, and that guy ended up winning by one vote.

In Kansas, in my state, in 1997, some alien employees of a meat-packing plant across the border in Oklahoma were encouraged to register to vote in Kansas to help sway a country referendum on a hog-farming operation.

Perkins: Why the opposition? Why are people opposed to this?

Kobach: Well, as you know, it comes from groups on the radical left, and they make all kinds of claims asserting that it’s going to be harder to vote or harder to register, but they have great difficulty demonstrating that it’s actually harder or statistically showing that it produces reduced turnout when in fact the opposite seems to occur, people have greater confidence in their elections when they know they’re secure.

I don’t know, I think some of these groups just want the loosey-goosey kind of system that allows fraud to occur because they perhaps feel they can benefit from that fraud.

CBN Denounces Putin's Suppression Of Religious Freedom But Joins Anti-Gay Kremlin Summit

A top official with Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network is helping the far-right World Congress of Families (WCF) organize a summit with other anti-gay activists at the Kremlin in September, which the WCF is framing as a show of support for Vladimir Putin’s government and his recent crackdown on gay rights.

Justin Murff, the Grants & Foundations Manager for CBN International, is slated to speak at the first day of the pro-Putin gathering alongside Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family and Allan Sears of Alliance Defending Freedom, and is on a panel the second day with Focus on the Family official Tom Minnery.

Other panels at the Kremlin conference include “Ex-Gay Movement,” “Case Studies from the Marriage Fight,” “Dangers of Sex Education” and “Roots of Sexual Revolution.” While many American Religious Right pastors, leaders and activists have become cheerleaders for Putin’s authoritarian government, CBN’s involvement in the Kremlin gathering is somewhat surprising because today the 700 Club aired a report from CBN correspondent Paul Strand about how Putin is rolling back the freedom of religion, particularly trampling on the rights of evangelicals and other Christians who aren’t members of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 2011, CBN reporter George Thomas similarly reported that Baptists and Pentecostals are facing growing threats under Putin’s leadership.

CBN’s involvement in the WCF summit highlights the fact that other Religious Right groups are looking the other way and deliberately ignoring the threats to religious freedom in Russia in order to salute the country’s anti-gay policies.

Birther Justice: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Sides With Anti-Obama Birther Activists

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is best known over his fight to put a Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse rotunda, sided last week with birther activists who, according to The Huntsville Times, “wanted Alabama's Secretary of State to certify the birth certificate of each presidential candidate before allowing their names to appear on the general election ballot.”

Former congressman and Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode filed the lawsuit along with an Alabama resident Hugh McInnish, a conservative blogger and Republican party official. As we noted last year, the pair tapped birther leader Larry Klayman as their lawyer and predicted that Moore would aid their cause.

In his dissenting opinion, Moore wrote:

The Secretary of State has a duty under state law to examine the qualifications of national-convention nominees who ran in the presidential primary before placing their names on the general-election ballot. The jurisdiction-stripping statute forbids inquiry into the eligibility of presidential candidates once an election has occurred, but it does not preclude such an inquiry before the election.



The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court ordering the Secretary of State to require from each presidential candidate a verified birth certificate. Presentation of a birth certificate is indeed a common means of determining age and citizenship. Although I would not prescribe the manner in which the Secretary of State is to verify eligibility of presidential candidates, I believe she has a duty as the chief presidential candidates, I believe she has a duty as the chief elections official of Alabama official of Alabama to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of Article II, § 4, of the United States Constitution.



This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.

Justice Tom Parker, whose biography touts his work with James Dobson and Pat Robertson, issued his own dissent in which he insisted that the secretary of state should have specifically investigated President Obama’s eligibility:

I write separately, however, to clarify that I do not believe that the Secretary of State has an affirmative duty to investigate, on his or her own volition, all the qualifications of every proposed candidate, but that the Secretary of State's duty to investigate a potential candidate's qualifications arises once the Secretary of State has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot. For the following reasons, I believe that, in the present case, the Secretary of State received notice sufficient to raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Barack Hussein Obama before including him as a candidate on Alabama's election ballot.



As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court's order striking McInnish's petition for a writ of mandamus: "McInnish attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the 'short form' and the 'long form' birth certificates of President Obama that have been made public."

On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish's petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions about President Obama's qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.

In his WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Klayman praised Moore and said that he won’t end his campaign to “remove this anti-American, pro-Muslim and anti-Judeo Christian president” until “the imposter in the White House” is “told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.”

To challenge a black president’s qualifications is to be branded a racist. Obama and his minions know this well and have milked his race at every turn to guilt white America, including its judges, into acquiescing to his continued destructive leadership bent on turning the country into not only a socialist pro-Muslim state, but one which is second rate in the world. And, to this end, Obama has succeeded. Today, our economy remains in shambles and Putin’s Russia is now the real superpower, having just seized a chunk of Ukraine – with more Hitleresque conquests on the horizon. As America’s power shrinks under Obama, Putin is bent on reconstituting the former communist empire of the Soviet Union. Thus, the stakes to remove this anti-American, pro-Muslim and anti-Judeo Christian president continue to rise.



Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected



We cannot quit. The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.

Credit Where Due: Todd Starnes Ends Interview With End Times Fanatic Rick Wiles

Several times over the last few weeks, we have wondered why members of Congress and Religious Right activists continue to appear on the radio program hosted by conspiracy theorist and End Times fanatic Rick Wiles, given that Wiles is a bona fide crackpot and a loose cannon, which is something that Todd Starnes learned first-hand when he appeared on Wiles' program on Friday.

Starnes was on to discuss his recent column about a controversy at the Air Force Academy over cadets posting Bible verses on their dormitory white boards, which brought a complaint from Mikey Weinstein, the director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Wiles announced that he was fed up with Weinstein and said that he needed to be met by a bunch of special forces commandos in a dark alley and "given an attitude adjustment." To his credit, Starnes took offense at that statement, denounced it, and ended the interview:

Wiles: You know what Mikey Weinstein needs? I'll say this on my radio show, I can get away with it: he really needs to be met in a dark alley by a couple of special forces commandos and given an attitude adjustment. You don't have to comment, Todd; I said it on my program. I'm fed up with that guy.

Starnes: I have to really incredibly object to that.

Wiles: I'm fed up with the guy. I'm fed up with the guy.

Starnes: Well, that may be the case but this is a free country and individuals are allowed to voice their opinions of whether or not they agree or disagree and they should be able to do so without any threat of violence or force ...

Wiles: Okay, but he doesn't just express his opinions ...

Starnes: It doesn't matter ...

Wiles: He's pursuing Christians. He is on a war against Christianity.

Starnes: Well, that is certainly his right. The issue here is not Mr. Weinstein and, again, we should live in a country where people can express their views without any threat of violence. The issue here is the Air Force Academy and this idea that they kowtow to ever single telephone call they receive from him.

Wiles: That's the point I'm making.

Starnes: And I do apologize, but I do have to end this interview. Again, we just strongly object to that comment you made, sir.

Wiles: I didn't mean to offend you, Todd. I'm just saying I think many Americans are just plain fed-up with this guy.

Starnes: Well, I'm sure they are and again, but we do have to end this interview. Thank you very much.

Wiles: Okay Todd, thank you. Good bye. Well, I tried to five years to get Todd Starnes on TruNews. I finally got him and he hung on me after five minutes.

After Starnes hung up, Wiles spent the remainder of the segment defending his comment and saying that he was sick of feckless Christians like Starnes who are more concerned about protecting their careers than they are with standing up to the "fat-mouthed atheists" and "Jesus-hating bigots" who are operating "under the spirit of Antichrist":

Pat Robertson Wonders If Viewer's Atheist Coworker Was Raped, Demon-Possessed

When a 700 Club viewer asked host Pat Robertson today if she should give up proselytizing to her atheist coworker and “let her perish,” Robertson speculated that the colleague might be possessed by demons or a survivor of rape.

“I don’t know if you’re dealing with something that is demonic or something that is deeply ingrained,” Robertson said. “It’s something beyond normal human experience, something has happened and she associates God — maybe she had an abusive father, somebody who raped her and then acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible, you just never know what is going on in somebody’s childhood.”

Robertson advised the viewer to “be understanding, be loving and don’t try to push anything on her, pray for her.”

Watch:

Pamela Geller Distorts Internet Decision To Warn Of Sharia Law

The Obama administration recently snubbed calls to hand over oversight of the Internet to the United Nations-led International Telecommunication Union by instead relinquishing control to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit founded by the US Department of Commerce.

Immediately, right-wing activists misrepresented the decision to claim just the opposite, warning that the move will actually give the UN control of the Internet.

Today in WorldNetDaily, anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller falsely claims that President Obama gave control of the Internet to the UN and suggests that the move will lead to Islamic censorship laws and maybe even the outlawing of her website.

Global governance of the Internet. “Global governance?” As in the U.N.? And who and what drives the U.N.? The largest voting bloc at the U.N. is what drives its policies, and that is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC. The historian Bat Ye’or describes the OIC this way: “The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah – the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body.”

The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation will undoubtedly demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and they won’t be referring to jihad forums that foment violence and incite to slaughter. The WSJ explains: “According to the administration’s announcement, the Commerce Department will not renew its agreement with Icann, which dates to 1998. This means, effective next year, the U.S. will no longer oversee the ‘root zone file,’ which contains all names and addresses for websites world-wide. If authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere get their way, domains could be banned and new ones not approved for meddlesome groups such as Ukrainian-independence organizations or Tibetan human-rights activists.”

Readers of my website, PamelaGeller.com, are well aware of the goals of the OIC. It has already gotten passed a proposal in the U.N., backed by Muslim nations, urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism. Islam is the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

Websites like mine are the ones that dare speak of the truth of Islam and report on the jihad and the terrible human rights abuses, the persecution of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., the oppression of women and children, the murder of nonbelievers, the brutal imposition of Shariah law, Islamic supremacism, academic jihad, social jihad, cultural jihad, Shariah finance, stealth jihad and the galloping global jihad. The corrupt media are already subdued and self-censor. The net is all there is.

Back in 2009, Obama threatened such anti-freedom action; I wrote about it at the time. He backed off after the American people and the Congress protested.

Where are the American people now?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious