Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage

As Valentine’s Day approaches, the conservative activists at Liberty Counsel are once again promoting the competing “Day of Purity,” an opportunity for those “who strive for sexual purity an opportunity to stand together in opposition to a culture of moral decline.”

Liberty Counsel’s previous attempt to make the Day of Purity cool for kids, a video featuring “Purity Bear,” has unfortunately been removed from YouTube following widespread Internet mockery (but can still be found on Vimeo).

Now, the group is trying to make abstinence-only-before-marriage hip by calling it the “politically incorrect” [PDF] thing to do. In a handout [PDF] about the event, Liberty Counsel even makes the absurd claim that supporters of abstinence before marriage are losing their “right to speak and be heard.”

Defending your rights and the rights of others to express their beliefs and act in accordance with those rights. There are those in today’s culture that are trying to silence those who believe that sex should be saved until marriage between a husband and a wife. They say they want tolerance and diversity, but what they really want is to silence anyone who believes in traditional values and traditional family. You have the right to speak and be heard. Be mature and speak out for what you know is right and true.

We are not exactly sure where it is now a criminal act to be abstinent or to encourage others to be abstinent.

Maybe in the same jurisdictions where Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber fears he may soon be forced to choose between participating in gay marriage and death.

Liberty Counsel has more fun tips for the Day of Purity, including a “True Friend” guide [PDF] that warns against maintaining friendships with people who do “not share the same value system.” The group also offers great some great prom theme ideas [PDF], such as “Chlamydia”:

…as well as some outdated MasterCard spoof ads:

Along with:

Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide

Genocide is okay if its purpose is to stop man-animal sex, Pat Robertson explained today on the 700 Club.

When a viewer asked the televangelist about Old Testament accounts “where God told his people to wipe out cities and take their lands,” noting that it “sounds like Islam to me,” Robertson responded that God was actually showing mercy on the annihilated peoples because otherwise they would pass their sinful ways onto their children and grandchildren.

Assuming you have a culture that has 1,000 really bad people in it — they’re murderers, they’re thieves, they’re rapists, they’re having incest, you name it they are doing everything horrible — now if they have children, what’s going to happen? Instead of having 1,000, you’ll have 3,000 or 4,000; then — nothing has changed them — then they’ll pass it on to the next generation and the next thing you know you’ve got 10,000 or 20,000 of them and if it keeps on going you’re going to have a million of them. So what’s the most merciful thing for a loving God to do? It’s to take the thousand and get rid of them. And that’s what He did.

“It sounds cruel but in the long run it’s more merciful,” he continued. “Further, He didn’t want his people to be contaminated by those people…. They had sex with animals, they had incest, they did all of these terrible things and they offered their children as sacrifices to their gods, it was horrible what they did.”

The 10 Worst Arguments In Eagle Forum's Anti-Immigrant Plan To Save The GOP

Phyllis Schlafly, one of the strongest proponents of the theory that the Republican Party can survive simply by solidifying its base of white voters, is out with a new report arguing that all the GOP needs to do to thrive is to cut legal immigration in half.

In the report, Eagle Forum argues that immigrants – particularly Latino and Asian-American immigrants -- are inherently “leftist,” drawn to “the left’s race-based grievance politics,” and reliant on the country’s “racial spoils system and a huge welfare state,” and so therefore legal immigration should be dramatically reduced in order to save the Republican Party.

The report backs Schlafly’s idea – echoed by groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies and activists such as Pat Buchanan – that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to become “ welcoming and inclusive” (particularly through immigration reform) but instead stir up racial hostility in order to solidify its hold among white voters. Unsurprisingly, this theory was first laid out by a prominent white nationalist writer before it hit the big time.

Schlafly has never been very good at hiding partisan motivation for right-wing policy. Last year, for instance, she unabashedly admitted that the purpose of Voter ID laws is to decrease Democratic turnout.

We’ve collected ten of the worst arguments in Eagle Forum’s report, which we fully expect to see waved around by conservative lawmakers in the near future.

  1. Democrats promote immigration just to get votes. “Looking at the political motivation of the groups push­ing higher immigration and amnesty, it’s obvious that the Democrats promote large-scale immigration because it produces more Democratic votes. A recent Gallup poll found that ‘Hispanics in the United States identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party over the Republicans Party by about a two-to-one margin, regardless of whether they were U.S.-born.’ If the Republican Party is to remain a party that is conservative and nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty and any proposed increases in legal immigration. Further, conservatives must work to signifi­cantly reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country from the current level of 1.1 million a year.”
  2. Reducing legal immigration should be the #1 conservative issue. “ Each decade under current policy, about 11 million new legal immigrants arrive and become potential voters. If immigra­tion is not reduced, it will be virtually impossible for Republicans to remain nationally competitive as a conservative party. The key conclusion of the report is this: For conservatives, there is no issue more important than reducing the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year .”
  3. Immigrants “attracted” to “affirmative action and welfare” and “identity- and grievance-based politics.” “Most immigrants come from countries where the government plays a larger role in the economy and society. Their support for expansive government is reinforced by liberal elites in immigrant communities and the liberal urban areas in which so many settle. Further, immigrants’ liberalism often reflects self-interest, as many benefit from affirmative action and welfare. Unfortunately, some immigrants are also attracted to the Democratic Party’s support for identity- and grievance-based politics. In short, the factors contributing to immigrants’ liberalism are largely outside of the Republican Party’s control .”
  4. Anti-immigrant policies don’t hurt Republicans. “The idea that Republicans’ support for Proposition 187 two decades ago is what continues to cost the party [California] ig­nores the fact that voters in immigrant communities support Democrats because they largely agree with them on policies other than immigration ... The real problem is that immigration has created a far larger liberal electorate in California. If legal immigration is not reduced, the same thing will happen across the country .”
  5. Immigrants will turn America into New York and San Francisco . “These are two of the most intensely immigrant-settled cities in America — one-third of their residents are foreign-born. The governments of both cities are solidly left-wing, combining high taxes and oppressive business regulation with the Left’s cultural agenda and race-based grievance politics. The immigrants in both cities are quite different, with San Fran­cisco being predominately Asian while New York’s immigrants are very diverse, with Hispanics being the largest share. Yet, there has been no significant political pushback against liberal policies from immigrant voters in either city. In fact, Hispanics and Asians are part of the dominant Democratic coalition in both places. New York and San Francisco show how voters in immigrant communities can live with the most extreme manifestations of the Left’s social and economic agenda and remain enthusiastic Democrats.
  6. Immigrants are “alienated” by patriotism. “Yet the gap between naturalized citizens and native-born citizens on measures of attachment to the United States is so large that the authors of a Hudson report concluded that the nation’s ‘patriotic assimilation system’ is broken. These results matter politically because patriotism and American sovereignty are central to the conservative message, but such a message is meaningless to a significant share of immigrant voters, or even likely to alienate them .”
  7.  Immigrants encourage “ethnic separatism” and “grievance-based politics.” Putting aside the level of immigration, the rise of multicul­turalism and ethnic grievance-based politics makes the kind of assimilation that leads to voting Republican much more difficult. Unlike in the past, today’s immigrants are ar­riving in an America with a racial spoils system and a huge welfare state, which unfortunately many are dependent on. This new reality makes it much less likely that the children of today’s immigrants will come to identify with the small-government agenda of the Republican Party. Most principled Republicans rightly oppose such policies, but identity politics and all the policies that go with it are well established in modern America. Even if one optimisti­cally assumes that someday we will abandon such divisive policies, for the foreseeable future immigrants will continue to arrive in an America that encourages ethnic separatism and discourages assimilation. In fact, mass immigration provides one of the key underlying justifications used by liberal elites for continuing such policies. This fact makes lowering the level of new immigration all the more impor­tant.”
  8. Diversity is ruining America. “Finally, immigration increases support for big government by adding to society’s diversity. Robert Putnam of Harvard has shown that increased diversity results in less civic engagement and attachment. Putnam’s work shows that as diversity increases, people of all groups become less trusting of one another — even less trusting of members of their own group. He concludes that people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actu­ally make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” A society in which private citizens do less for themselves but want more from the government is tailor-made for Democrats. Federal immigration policy, if it is allowed to continue, will move America further in this direction. When private citizens do less for themselves or for others, the vacuum is filled by government. Yes, immigration adds many new Democratic voters. But it also makes the rest of the electorate more inclined to support the Democrats’ statist agenda."
  9. Descendants of European Catholic and Jewish immigrants aren't good for Republicans either. "It is also worth pointing out that many of the descendants of Great Wave immigrants still do not vote Republican, a cen­tury after many of their ancestors arrived. Looking at white non-Hispanic Catholics and Jews gives us some idea of how the descendants of these immigrants vote today. While Romney did better in 2012 than most recent Republicans with white Catholics, in both 2000 and 2008 only 52 percent voted for the Republican presidential candidate. Moreover, a majority of Jews have voted Democratic in every presi­dential election for which there is data, including 2012. The idea that the descendants of Great Wave immigrants eventually became solidly Republican is incorrect."
  10. Immigrants will take away your guns just by living in cities. One of the reasons whites have such a strong commitment to gun rights is the much larger share who own them. The reason for this is that a much larger share of whites live in rural America or have roots there and are thus familiar with firearms in a way that is less common among urbanites. Asians and Hispanics in contrast are set­tling in cities and the suburbs where hunting and gun ownership are much less widespread. And they are coming from countries where firearms ownership is highly restricted. It is unlikely in the extreme that Asians and Hispanics will ever have gun ownership rates approaching that of whites given where they are coming from and where they are settling. This fact means that immigration unavoidably increases the share of the electorate that has no experience with guns. As a result, immigrants and their children will tend to be much more supportive of efforts to limit or even ban gun ownership. As is the case with other issues, continued high levels of immigration have important implications for the future of public policy.

 

 

Daubenmire: 'I Believe It's Time For Us To, Once Again, Ban Pornography'

"Coach" Dave Daubenmire was on his computer recently when he received an offer to view pornography on the internet and, while it was unwanted, it was also was very, very tempting to him ... so obviously, the only solution to this sort of temptation is to completely ban and criminalize pornography.

"This may seem really radical to you, but we seem to be rational people here in America," Daubenmire declared. "I believe it's time for us to, once again, ban pornography."

Comparing it to smoking, drug use, and drunk driving, Daubenmire proclaimed that pornography is "the greatest scourge in America" and called for those who produce it and view it to be arrested:

Pat Robertson Insists That He's Not 'Some Sort Of Right-Wing Extremist'

Last week, Pat Robertson spoke with Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" to address the statement he made last year that there was nothing sinful about people who are transgender. In the interview, Robertson stood by his previous assertion, which was mildly surprising ... but what was more surprising is Robertson's belief that he is in no way an "extremist" but is, in fact, quite "balanced" and "mainstream":

Evangelist and businessman Pat Robertson is no stranger to controversy, but he recently told TheBlaze that he believes some of his critics have spread a major fallacy about his political standing.

“Well, I think the misconception is that I’m some sort of right-wing extremist,” Robertson said. That, he said, just isn’t the case. “I’m a graduate of Yale Law School and I’m a businessman.”

Running down his credentials and accomplishments (he founded Regent University, the American Center for Law and Justice and the Christian Broadcasting Network, among other organizations) Robertson said it’s easy to make a caricature of someone to score political points and to dub him or her “extreme” as his critics have done.

In contrast to his media portrait, Robertson believes that he’s actually “extremely balanced.”

“I’m what you’d call a Jeffersonian Democrat [who believes in] fundamental … biblical values,” Robertson said. “That isn’t extreme, that’s mainstream.”

We'd just like to say that if Pat Robertson does not qualify as "some sort of right-wing extremist," then that phrase has no meaning.

Right Wing Round-Up - 1/31/14

Right Wing Leftovers - 1/31/14

  • When he spoke at a March for Life rally in South Carolina recently, David Barton was apparently honored by the state Senate.
  • Speaking of South Carolina, we are not at all surprised to learn that Lee Bright has picked up an endorsement from Rep. Steve Stockman.
  • Gordon Klingenschmitt says that "conservative chaplains are going underground" because they are worried about being persecuted by the military.
  • Apparently the Bible is predicting that both the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks are going to win the Super Bowl.
  • Speaking of football, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire is not happy with all the people who are sissifying his beloved sport.
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer says that Dinesh D'Souza is being persecuted because he is a Christian, just like Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine Shrugs Off Questioner Who Called For Obama To Be Killed

At a breakfast event with the Tea Party organization Tulsa 9:12 Project last week, Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) saw no need to rebuke or even disagree with a questioner who said that President Obama should be executed.

“Obama, he’s not president, as far as I’m concerned, he should be executed as an enemy combatant,” the questioner said, before asking the congressman about “the Muslims that he is shipping into our country through pilots and commercial jets” (a claim based on a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory).

“This guy is a criminal and nobody’s stopped him,” she declared.

Bridenstine didn’t respond to her call for the president’s execution, but agreed that Obama is “lawless” and said he rules “by decree” and through the United Nations.

Watch:

Former Komen Exec Karen Handel Fundraising Off Planned Parenthood Debacle

Remember two years ago when the Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation abruptly dropped its grants to a Planned Parenthood breast-cancer screening program, setting off a national outcry, and prompting the resignation of the Komen official reportedly behind the decision?

The fallout of the debacle is still hurting Komen, which recently reported a 22 percent drop in income over the past year. But the decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood seems to be paying off for one person: Karen Handel, the former Komen vice president who was widelyreported to have been the driving force behind split.

Now running for Senate in Georgia, Handel has released a campaign video touting her role in severing Planned Parenthood from Komen and fighting back against the “left-wing groups” and “liberal media” that criticized her.

Back when the news first broke that Komen had dumped Planned Parenthood, Handel denied that the decision was motivated at all by her anti-choice politics, despite reports from sources in the organization that said she manipulated its rules to cast Planned Parenthood out.

The campaign video has a different take, framing Handel as an anti-choice crusader caught in a David vs. Goliath struggle. “As a strong believer in the sanctity of life, Karen Handel had to make a decision: keep quiet in the face of the liberal onslaught, or stand by her convictions,” the video announces.

In speeches and interviews, Handel has made the Planned Parenthood showdown a centerpiece of her biography. She even paved the way for her Senate run by releasing a book calling Planned Parenthood “thugs” and “bullies.”

Whatever Handel’s motivations or role in the Komen/Planned Parenthood split, the whole episode seems to be working out pretty well for her. The decision that Handel advocated for might have left Komen struggling financially, but Handel herself now has the perfect story to prove her status as an anti-choice activist martyred by the liberal media.

Agema: Stop 'Shoving This Idea Down Our Throat' Of The 'Homosexual Lifestyle'

If Dave Agema were to lose his post at the Republican National Committee over recent anti-gay and anti-Muslim comments, he could probably find a job at the American Family Association – a group that can’t seem to get enough of his bigoted remarks. After appearing on Focal Point with AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer, yesterday Agema spoke to the AFA’s governmental affairs director Sandy Rios on her talk show.

As Kyle has already pointed out, the embattled GOP activist holds a warped view of the First Amendment: “Agema, like so many anti-gay right-wing martyrs before him, seems to be operating under the delusion that ‘freedom of speech’ mean that they are entitled to say anything they want without receiving any criticism or suffering any consequence whatsoever.”

While speaking to Rios, Agema continued to insist that calls for him to resign from the RNC are direct attacks on his right to freedom of speech. He vowed not to resign, lest the culture keep “shoving this idea down our throat that we have to accept this homosexual lifestyle.”

When they use the rules of Saul Alinksy that basically you cut off support from your networks, isolate the person through cruel [sic] and ridicule and so forth, what happens is they fear. The biggest thing is right now we’ve got Hollywood, you’ve got the news media, you’ve got ignorant school courses, you’ve got the Grammys now that are shoving this idea down our throat that we have to accept this homosexual lifestyle.



The whole thing really boils down to the freedom of speech, I think that’s what is stopping me. I put it on my Facebook – an article on freedom of speech and how political correctness is taking away our freedom of speech and that is directed mostly by Hollywood and the news media are [sic] telling us what political correctness is and that’s I think what is really hurting this country.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious