Rios: Media Coverage of Greenwald and Quinn Represents 'The Perversion of Normalcy'

Conservative talk show host Sandy Rios today described how she is upset about recent media stories on Kim Catullo, New York mayoral candidate Christine Quinn’s wife, and David Miranda, reporter Glenn Greenwald’s partner who was held for almost nine hours by British authorities at Heathrow airport.

“We have a mayor and a first lady—I can’t even find the language for that,” Rios commented about Quinn and Catullo, before ranting that “Glenn Greenwald has a gay partner and his gay partner David Miranda was detained at Heathrow and it’s like the world has ended.” “We are accustomed to the perversion of normality, we are getting so used to it in our headlines,” Rios lamented.

“It’s just amazing to me the power of the homosexual movement and the interest in the sex lives in all of these people.” Rios said we should “operate as individuals” and gay people should not “parade” their homosexuality.

Fischer: 'I Think We May Be Headed Toward Bloodshed In America'

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer took a call from a listener who warned that the American people will one day wake up to what is being done to them by the government and when that day comes, it will lead to revolution.

Fischer shared the caller's concerns, saying "I think we may be headed toward bloodshed in America."

"There are a number of avenues," Fischer stated, "starting right where we're at right now that could lead to bloodshed, could lead to anarchy, could lead to chaos in America."

After insisting that he does not want to see anything like that happen, Fischer warned that the fact that members of Congress are reluctant to hold town hall meetings during the August recess could lead to a revolution.

"If our elected officials will not listen to us, if they will not meet with us, if they will not respond to the urgent appeal of their own constituents, the people that elected them to office, then eventually you might get to the point [where] people will just get fed up and then you'll start having some very, very unpredictable things that will happen":

Steve King: 'Cantaloupes' Comment Just Like Complimenting Bodies of 'Olympic Athletes'

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) continued to defend his assertion that the vast majority of young undocumented immigrants are drug smugglers “with calves the size of cantaloupes,” telling Mike Huckabee today that his remarks were no different than complimenting the body of an Olympian.

The Iowa congressman said there was nothing inaccurate or wrong about his claim that “for every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” insisting that “if I offended anybody I didn’t do a very good job of it, but it should’ve been offensive perhaps to drug smugglers but no one else.”

“They’re not just making one trip across the border with 75 pounds of marijuana but it is multiple trips,” King said, “they’re in physical shape for that, just like you can see in an Olympic athlete, that would be obvious to us and I don’t think that would be denigrating.”

He went on to claim that immigration reform legislation “guarantees the permanent destruction of the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, as far as I can imagine into the future.”

Phyllis Schlafly's Totally Coherent Defense of North Carolina's Voter Suppression Law

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly comes to the defense of North Carolina’s new voter suppression measure with classic Schlafly logic. The new law is not politically motivated and won’t keep Democrats from voting, Schlafly claims…before adding that the law’s main virtue is that it is politically motivated and will keep Democrats from voting.

Schlafly starts out her argument by claiming that the notion that the state’s new photo ID requirement will disproportionately disenfranchise largely Democratic voting groups is “absurd” because “the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts”….and then immediately contradicts herself by declaring “the real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats”:

Liberals make the absurd claim that requiring photo ID is discriminatory because some minority groups may be unable to provide proper ID. But government-issued photo identification can be obtained by anyone at very low cost.

We already need photo ID, aka a driver’s license, to drive to work, which is rather important to most people. Welfare recipients are required to show photo ID to receive money in many states, and we haven’t heard any gripes about ID discrimination.

If the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts, they should be able to do likewise for voting. The real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats.

Schlafly then takes on the North Carolina law’s reduction of early voting days, including eliminating Sunday early voting, which she happily admits is a response to the popularity of early voting among Democratic voters:

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”

She is especially upset that the Obama campaign (or the “Obama technocrats”) ran a successful early voting get-out-the-vote effort, or, as she puts it, “identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote”:

The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.

But early voting’s sins, according to Schlafly, go beyond being successfully used by Democrats. In fact, she says, early voting “is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution”:

Early voting is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Article II states, “the Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes, which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Federal law sets the date for national elections on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But that isn’t all! Schlafly -- who happens to be the recipient of the 2011 Citizens United Lifetime Achievement Award--  claims that early voting actually “increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns.” Not only that, she says, but it “increases opportunities for ballot fraud” because, she claims without any evidence, poll watchers aren’t present during early voting:

Early voting increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns because it requires candidates to campaign, to spend and to buy expensive television ads over additional weeks. Early voting increases opportunities for ballot fraud because the necessary poll watchers we expect to be on the job at polling places on Election Day can’t be present for so many days.

Schlafly wraps up her argument by declaring that North Carolina’s voter suppression law should “cheer up” conservatives  as they work to restrict reproductive choice, cut unemployment insurance and Medicaid and mandate the teaching of cursive so that “kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers”:

In 2012 the Democrats were so sure that North Carolina was a happy hunting ground for their votes that they held their National Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama. North Carolina promptly responded by voting down same-sex marriage in a referendum and then passing a bunch of good laws. So cheer up, conservatives.

In addition to the helpful new voting laws, North Carolina passed stricter regulations on abortion clinics, ended teacher tenure, cut unemployment benefits, blocked the expansion of Medicaid and (despite the scorn of propagandists for the national takeover of education by Common Core) mandated the teaching of cursive writing. Maybe that’s why the liberals are so angry: Kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers.

Case closed.

Wildmon: Secular Progressives 'Hate The God Of The Bible'

Birther king Joseph Farah of WND was a guest on the "Today's Issues" program this morning where he and AFA President Tim Wildmon discussed "Obama's war against Christians."

Wildmon admitted that Christians in America are not suffering the same sort of persecution as Christians in other nations around the world, but warned that if America continues to follow this path, that same sort of persecution will soon be happening here "if you continue to denigrate people and their beliefs and their Bible."

Wildmon blamed it all on secular progressives who are "progressing toward anarchy ... or communism" and who "hate the Judeo-Christian worldview; in essence, they won't tell you this necessarily, but they hate the god of the Bible " and seek to rebel against him:

Charisma Magazine Asks Chris Christie: What If Child Predators Preyed On Your Son?

Anti-gay activists are furious that Gov. Chris Christie signed into law a bill barring ex-gay therapy for minors, and pastor Larry Tomczak penned an open letter to the New Jersey governor in his Charisma magazine blog. Tomczak, upset about Christie’s “unconscionable” decision to “capitulate to the gay agenda,” said the governor should reflect on his own “battle with overeating and endangering your health through poor nutritional choices” and realize that he shouldn’t affirm the gay “lifestyle” and its “frightening consequences.”

He goes on to ask Christie what he would think if older men preyed on his teenage son, who, as a result, “found himself temporarily confused and traumatized.” Tomczak said that after such experiences as a boy his “parents and pastors and counselors” had “early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding.”

Tomczak said that after such experiences as a boy his “parents and pastors and counselors” had “early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding.”

“I close this appeal by directing you to our Founding Fathers,” Tomczak writes. “They honored a Judeo-Christian belief system and upheld the Bible as their source of wisdom for life, laws and legislation.”

Young people today face challenges in the realm of sexuality that are unparalleled in our history. When you and I were growing up with our Roman Catholic training, we never faced the avalanche of pornography and celebration of homosexuality prevailing in the media, schools, government and entertainment there is today.

Multitudes of young children and teenagers are wrestling with sexual identity as they come of age. To capitulate to the gay agenda and stonewall providing options for those who are asking for them really is unconscionable. And since you pride yourself on being very up front and to the point, I'd like to submit to you that your three points are completely inconsistent with what should be your Roman Catholic and Christian worldview.



While parents, counselors and all of us should express understanding regarding people's upbringing and pain, we cannot release people from taking personal responsibility for their actions to do what is moral and right. Your well-publicized battle with overeating and endangering your health through poor nutritional choices probably makes this easy to comprehend.



Here's the deal: Are we really helping young people by reinforcing the prevailing notion that people are born gay—stuck to be this way for the rest of their life? And yes, there are pretty frightening consequences to this lifestyle that folks had just better accept



Gov. Christie, among your four children is a young teenage boy. Since you are known for your bluntness, can I share in a transparent manner some things that happened to me when I was his age and then ask a closing question?

As a young teen, two male teenage relatives tried to seduce me into sexual experimentation with gay sex. Additionally, I had a homosexual pick me up once while hitchhiking, and he offered me money to come to his apartment for an enema. (I was 13 and clueless as to what that was.) In a relatively short time, I jumped out of that car!

To this very day, I am grateful to God for parents and pastors and counselors who early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding. I knew right from wrong. I was able to discern, when faced with something that the Bible said was "unnatural" and "shameful" (Rom 1:24-27), what was the right thing to do.

Gov. Christie, I beseech you to step back and take a fresh look at this law. Think about your children. Think about the future of our nation. Think about how we can best prepare young people for a healthy and successful life. If your son when through what I did, found himself temporarily confused and traumatized, what kind of counsel—honestly—would you want him to hear?

Many believe you have aspirations for the presidency. I close this appeal by directing you to our Founding Fathers. They honored a Judeo-Christian belief system and upheld the Bible as their source of wisdom for life, laws and legislation.

Will you?

Respectfully submitted and upholding you and your family in my prayers, I remain,

Larry Tomczak

How Crayon Drawings Can Tell If There Are Demons In Your Brain

We first heard about Dr. Jerry Mungadze when he appeared on a program with televangelist Joni Lamb of Daystar dedicated to the wonders of ex-gay therapy, where he maintained that he has seen the physical “healing” of gay people’s brains as they transition from “showing the homosexuality” to “show[ing] heterosexuality.”

It later turned out that Mungadze, who is not a scientist but a “scholar” with degrees in biblical studies and counselor education, wasn’t referring to actual brain scans but to crayon drawings of brains. Mungadze claims that based on the colored pencil or crayon a person chooses to color in a picture of a brain, he can tell if they are gay or straight.

He took his “science” to televangelist Benny Hinn’s show This Is Your Day earlier this week, where he also revealed that he can tell if someone is possessed by demons if they choose darker colors on their brain map.

“Everything that I talk about is based on numbers, is based on studies, which is what you do when you’re a scientist,” he told Hinn, adding that “you can actually see demonization in people’s brains.”

“There’s a certain color that I won’t mention that tells me if someone is demonized,” Mungadze continued, until he ultimately revealed that dark colors such as black, brown and gray are proof of demonic possession.

“I can be in a room with people who are into the occult who are steeped in demonology, I may not know it just by sitting next to them but I let them do that and I can tell what spirit they have,” Mungadze said. “People that come from the occult, people coming from witchcraft usually [choose] blacks and browns and grays.”

Watch:

Robertson Warns Obama 'May Have Made A Deal With The Muslim Brotherhood'

Pat Robertson kicked off today’s edition of the 700 Club by interviewing Christian Broadcasting Network contributor Raymond Ibrahim, who spent most of the time rehashing a claim he said he heard from the Egyptian press that “Obama is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Everyone is convinced this is a conspiracy,” Ibrahim told Robertson, “you can’t help but wonder, of course it is, because why is the Obama administration so adamant about helping this organization?”

At one point in the interview, Ibrahim even suggested that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the attack on the US compound in Benghazi and alleged that the US is trying to cover up its supposed knowledge of the group’s involvement by pushing for the release of Muslim Brotherhood officials from prison.

Later, Robertson said that it’s “appalling” and “shocking to think Obama may have made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Robertson, who has previously warned that Obama has a Muslim “inclination” and might be a “crypto-Muslim,” lamented that “we’ve got a president, you wonder about where he is coming from.” He also warned the Obama administration is trying to aid the Muslim Brotherhood’s drive “to establish an Islamic super-state.”

Watch highlights here:

Klingenschmitt: 'American Law Needs To Reflect God's Law'

A large portion of "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt's most recent "Pray In Jesus Name" program was dedicated to replaying an interview he recently gave to Alan Colmes over his assertion that gays ought to be discriminated against.

After having played the entire interview, Klingenschmitt commented that he and Colmes disagree on the role that the Bible should play in our public policy, with Klingenschmitt saying that "American law needs to reflect God's law."

If it does not, Klingenschmitt warned, "American law is telling some people, oh this is really legal, when it's actually illegal under God's law ... [and that] does a disservice even to the homosexual community who will face that on Judgment Day":

Steve Stockman Not a Birther on Ted Cruz; Still Thinks Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fraudulent

Birther congressman Steve Stockman says he’s not a birther after all, now that Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz is considering a run for president. The Texas Republican, who is crafting a birther bill with Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), said his home state senator is indeed eligible for the presidency even though he was born outside of the US.

The debunked birther conspiracy theory centers on the idea that President Obama forged his Hawaiian birth certificate to hide his foreign birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, which would make him ineligible to be president. Cruz, who also has an American mother but unlike Obama was actually born abroad, would therefore also be deemed ineligible if birthers had any logical consistency, which apparently they don’t.

Stockman told the arch-birther website WorldNetDaily that he has no problem with Cruz’s likely presidential bid, noting that they are both friends and attend the same church.

However, he still thinks Obama might have a “fraudulent” birth certificate and thinks he was listed as a “foreign student,” a reference to another discredited conspiracy theory.

To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.

The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.

Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide.

Stockman was happy to talk about his fellow Texan and tea-party favorite, saying, “He’s a good friend of mine and a great guy. In fact, I believe we go to the same church in Houston.”

The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.

Stockman noted that it took a long time for Obama to produce a document, and even now, questions linger.

“One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent,” he explained. “But I don’t question Cruz. Ted came right out and said, ‘Here’s the documentation.



Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.

Lord Monckton, a WND commentator, even insisted that he was never a birther — despite having repeatedly claimed [PDF] that Obama’s supposed foreign birth made him ineligible to be president — and is fine with a Cruz presidency.

WND columnist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Lord Monckton also has said the issue with Obama is not where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Monckton has claimed the birth certificate Obama finally produced after years of prodding is “plainly a forgery” and could be dismantled with software.

Monckton, of course, just last year wrote in WorldNetDaily that people who are not born on US soil could not be president:

This is what your Constitution says:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

No ifs. No buts. This is the ancient and sensible ius soli: you are a citizen of the nation on whose soil you were born. Not born here? Go and play president somewhere else.

Unless, that soil is Canada and your name is Ted Cruz, apparently.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious