Anti-Sharia Activist: Oklahoma Judge 'Went Out Of Her Way To Side With The Minorities'

In an interview with Janet Mefferd Friday, the chief advocate of Oklahoma’s Sharia law ban lashed out at federal judge Vicki Miles LaGrange for her ruling striking down the 2010 amendment. Rex Duncan, a former Republican state representative and now a district attorney, told Mefferd that the judge, who is African American, was upset by the prohibition on any “special treatment for a minority ideology or religion” because of her past support for “preferential treatment for minorities.”

“She just went out of her way to side with the minorities and make up a reason for it,” Duncan charged.

Somewhere in the recesses of her liberal mind she arrived at, and this is just my opinion, she arrived at the disposition, quickly, that she wanted to get and then had to torture the logic to justify her, in my mind, pre-determined opinion. This lady, she’s a smart lady, but when she was a state senator in Oklahoma she was very liberal, she was known for the liberal causes that she authored, many of which established preferential treatment for minorities with quotas set aside for hiring contracts with preferential treatment for minorities. So it didn’t come as a great surprise that a constitutional amendment that in effect tried to close the door on special treatment for a minority ideology or religion would be seen as her as hostile and I think that’s how she saw it, as a threat to the founding principles of our country, and she just went out of her way to side with the minorities and make up a reason for it.

Filling In For Glenn Beck, David Barton Lies About Common Core

As we noted several months ago, Glenn Beck has transformed his The Blaze network into a public policy organization dedicated to fighting the implementation of Common Core because he is convinced that it is going to lead to a 1984-like learning environment where students are strapped to computers and monitored at all times.

Leading this effort has been none other than David Barton, who, after hosting another gathering of anti-Common Core actvists and state legislators at Beck's headquarters, sat in for Beck on his television program on Friday for a hour-long program dedicated to Common Core and who, during his opening monologue, played this misleadingly edited video of an educator supposedly saying that, under Common Core, it doesn't matter if students think that 3 x 4 = 11 so long as they can explain how they arrived at that answer (skip ahead to 7:30 mark):

Following the clip, Barton said it showed that education under Common Core is not about "getting right answers," which is fundamentally false, and Barton knows it.

As we pointed out earlier this month, this video has been misleadingly edited, since the speaker is cut off after supposedly saying that getting the wrong answer is not important when the full video shows that she then goes on to say that any student who answered that 3 x 4 = 11 would be wrong and would be corrected.

In fact, Beck's own The Blaze network debunked the very clip that Barton played on the program last Monday:

The truncated clip features August’s statement: “But even under the new Common Core if even if they said 3 x 4 was 11, if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer, really in words and oral explanations and they showed it in a picture but they just got the final number wrong? We’re more focusing on the how and the why.”

An audience member then asks whether students will be corrected for giving the wrong answer.

“Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. We want our students to compute correctly. But the emphasis is really moving more towards the explanation, and the how, and the why, and can I really talk through the procedures that I went through to get this answer — and not just knowing that it’s 12, but why is it 12? How do I know that?” August replies.

A fuller video of the forum, however, reveals that August said first students should certainly know that 3 x 4 equals 12.

This is now the third time that we have found something debunked by The Blaze being repeated on Beck's shows as statement of fact.

Maybe the people at The Blaze who help put together Beck's programming ought to start reading their own reporting.

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/23/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 8/23/13

  • Take one guess who wrote this: " In defense of Russia’s law on homosexual propaganda."
  • Nidal Hasan has been convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder for his shooting rampage at Fort Hood in 2009.
  • Gary Bauer blames the murder of Christopher Lane on the educational system and popular culture: "[Young people] are told that we are all the result of a cosmic accident, that human life is just an accident, instead of being created in the image of God. We destroy over a million innocent babies a year and tell our children it is merely a choice."
  • Liberty Counsel says Chris Christie has ruined his chances of becoming president by signing the ban on ex-gay therapy.
  • We are pretty sure that Glenn Beck will never bother to mention this story.
  • Finally, Jeffrey Kuhner says that "by refusing to speak out on [Christopher] Lane’s death, Mr. Obama has shown conclusively that he is a demagogue who plays the race card in order to inflame racial tensions, thereby galvanizing the minority electorate. He is our race-hustler-in-chief."

Robertson: Obama Inciting 'Black-On-White Violence'

Pat Robertson today, while discussing the shooting of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma by three teenagers, two of them black and one white, accused President Obama of inciting anti-white violence. The 700 Club host said, “We are having a tremendous amount of this black-on-white violence and I have a feeling that instead of bringing racial harmony, having an African-American president has exacerbated the problem.”

“He seems to be wanting to bring division among people instead of bringing them together; he is one of the most divisive leaders this country has ever had,” Robertson continued. “It just seems he wants to rub the edges raw every chance he gets.” Robertson argued that Obama is trying to divide people by race and class: “There’s always something there to stir up controversy.”

Watch:

Schlafly: Immigration And Health Care Reform Are Part Of Obama's Plan To Introduce Communism

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform, took her case to the sympathetic audience at the Talk To Solomon Show last week. Schlafly told host Stan Solomon that President Obama’s drive “to put another thirty million people on our health care system ties in with Obama’s plan for amnesty, to bring them in by the millions and load them onto the taxpayer.”

Solomon explained that the result would be communism: “This is the design, communism is equal but awful, everyone has the same but no one has everything. Everyone has the same but no one has anything. That’s Obama’s plan.”

“That’s his plan,” Schlafly replied.

Earlier this year, Schlafly similarly alleged that immigration reform efforts were crafted by “socialist-minded people” who “want to destroy our system.”

Watch:

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.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious