Camenker: Educators Who Support LGBT-Inclusive Schools Like 'Nazi Concentration Camp Guards'

Brian Camenker of MassResistance appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk yesterday to denounce efforts in Massachusetts aimed at protecting transgender students.

He claimed that LGBT rights advocates “take advantage of these very vulnerable kids at a vulnerable time in their lives,” arguing that homosexuals do not exist: “You know, a lot of doctors have said to me that nobody is homosexual, they are just heterosexuals with homosexual problems and yes, change is possible.”

Camenker even argued that educators who support the new policy on gender identity in schools are much like “Nazi concentration camp guards” who “are doing this horrible evil and they are just taking orders or something, they believe in it.”

It’s insanity. I mean a boy cannot change his sex; your DNA does not change and you can call yourself something different, you can dress differently, you can take hormones, you are always a boy. The damage that this does to everybody, including the person involved and everybody around, is just unfathomable. These school administrators, you know I mean you think of them as what the Nazi concentration camp guards must have been like where they are doing this horrible evil and they are just taking orders or something, they believe in it. People need to rise up because it is only going to get worse.

Fischer: Liberals Are Like 'Vultures Feeding on the Carcass of the American Economy'

On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer cited a comment made by Charles Krauthammer based on a quote in a Washington Post article about the possible impact of the sequester to declare that liberals want bad things to happen because that is good for their political agenda and, as such, they "actually want bad things to happen to our country." 

"They are like scavengers," Fischer proclaimed, "they're like vultures feeding on the carcass of the American economy, so they want it to die so they can eat.  I mean, that is how perverse their worldview is":

Right Wing Round-Up - 2/26/13

  • Jeremy Hooper: In equality vs. discrimination debate, writing is on the wall; 70+ leading conservatives put it in a brief, too.
  • Chris Rodda: Barton Admits Getting Gun-Toting Students Story from Louis L’Amour, but it’s OK Because L’Amour Said it Really Happened.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/26/13

  • As we have said before, we cannot understand how Samuel Rodriguez maintains his reputation as some sort of "moderate" when he constantly associates himself with the most extreme elements of the Religious Right.
  • Matt Barber says that by failing to defend DOMA, the Obama administration is essentially trying to criminalize Christianity.
  • Once again, Glenn Beck hauls out his chalkboard to demonstrate that most Americans are just like him and Ted Cruz.
  • S.E Cupp has withdrawn from CPAC in protest of the ban on GOProud.
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer channels David Barton in claiming that Jesus was a capitalist because apparently parables about Heaven are also literal lessons about economics.

Klayman: AIPAC Acting Like 'Hitler's Jews' for Not Criticizing Obama Enough

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman thinks the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) “has become more akin to ‘Hitler's Jews’ than a defender of the Jewish people” because it hasn’t been sufficiently critical of President Obama.

Klayman maintains that AIPAC president Lee Rosenberg is “in bed with the Mullah-in-Chief” and claims “this ultra-leftist Jewish mafia type and his Chicago Jewish bottom-feeding allies have sold out their own people for political influence.”

It goes without saying that illegitimately elected American President Barack Hussein Obama is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. I need not repeat in depth in this column how the "Mullah in Chief" has undercut the Jewish state at every turn – from backing radical Islamist revolutionary movements like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere throughout the Middle East, to illegally releasing national security information that discloses sources and methods for fighting a war against Iran should one break out over this neo-Nazi regime's acquisition of nuclear weapons.



But all the blame for allowing Iran to become a virtually untouchable nuclear Muslim superpower does not rest on the shoulders of the "Mullah-in-Chief," his equally corrupt Democratic Party and the worthless political establishment hacks like McCain and Graham in the Republican Party, but also upon non-government and government Jewish leaders themselves – both in the United States and Israel.

Let's start with the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), the so-called "Jewish lobby" defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel has denigrated in the past as being too powerful. To the contrary, AIPAC, which is now lead by Lee Rosenberg, has not challenged Obama over Iran or the Hagel nomination, as this ultra-leftist Jewish mafia type and his Chicago Jewish bottom-feeding allies have sold out their own people for political influence. Here is how even the left-leaning Washington Post describes Rosenberg:

"Chicago entrepreneur Lee 'Rosy' Rosenberg was one of President Barack Obama's staunchest Jewish allies during his 2008 presidential campaign. He advised the president on foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel and delivered speeches to Jewish groups around the country. ...

"At its (AIPAC's) annual May 2011 policy conference, Rosenberg warned supporters that the tea-party wave that swept the November 2010 elections meant that friends in high places were going to be harder to come by for AIPAC."

"Rosenberg has ties to several of Obama's Chicago associates in the Jewish community including Lester Crowne, a local billionaire whose son, Jim, was Obama's 2008 Illinois finance chairman; Penny Pritzker, the campaign's national finance chairwoman; and Abner Mikva, the former congressman and federal judge and Obama mentor."

With no real "Jewish lobby," as Hagel put it, to challenge Obama – ostensibly because Rosy Rosenberg and "his" AIPAC are in bed with the Mullah-in-Chief – it's no wonder Obama and his leftist Democratic Party have gotten their way on Iran and Israel.

In the face of this, it is also regrettable that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seen fit, as all Israeli politicians have before him, to grace AIPAC with his support and presence each year at the lobbying group's annual conference in Washington, D.C. What is different now is that what previously had been the premier Jewish force in Washington has become more akin to "Hitler's Jews" than a defender of the Jewish people and its right to have a secure Israel.

Vic Eliason Wonders if Chuck Hagel Is a Secret Muslim while Phyllis Schlafly Thinks All Muslims Are Terrorists

Apparently, President Obama and John Brennan aren’t the only secret Muslim agents in the administration.

Yesterday, Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America interviewed Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly about Chuck Hagel, who is set to be confirmed as secretary of defense later today. Adding to the other ridiculous, last-ditch efforts to sink Hagel’s nomination, Eliason asked Schlafly about wild allegations “that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic.” Rather than specifically address Eliason’s question, Schlafly said that since Obama “gives a pass to Islam” in “his attack on religion,” Americans “have to be on guard on that all the time.”

The two then went on to praise Hagel-critic Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, who must be taking a break from his usual endeavors of exposing Obama’s foreign birthplace, secret Muslim faith and gay past.

Eliason: Phyllis, there have been those that allege that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic. What substance is on this thing?

Schlafly: Hagel is the most dangerous appointee for secretary of defense we’ve ever had, he’s got so many things wrong with him. He’s for getting rid of our nuclear weapons, he’s for downplaying our anti-missile defense and he’s even for signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give some more foreign people the opportunity to make decisions about our policies. Whereas we know the whole world is better off if we have military superiority. Well, when we talk about Obama and his attack on religion he gives a pass to Islam. So, we have to be on guard on that all the time.

Eliason: Well our good friend Jerry Corsi from over at WND had an interesting statement here, of course he refers to Mr. Hagel: ‘A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.’

Schlafly: Well Jerry Corsi is very reliable and I would take his words very seriously, that’s absolutely true. I think it so dangerous to have Hagel as secretary of defense, who is trying to implement all of the pacifist ideas that Obama has.

She also agreed with a caller who claimed that officials like Hagel need to identify President Obama as “the enemy” of America.

Later, Schlafly compared the American policy of Cold War deterrence to the current policy for “dealing with the Islam,” while noting that “the Muslims are different” than the Soviets as “they seem to like to commit suicide.”

Schlafly’s classification of all Muslims as terrorists was part of a bizarre argument that criticized Hagel for supposedly seeking to do away with America’s nuclear arsenal that she claims we need to scare terrorists who also are not at all afraid of our nuclear weapons.

Schlafly: I want to point out one difference between dealing with the Communists and dealing with the Islam. When the Communists in Russia were in charge we had a policy called mutually assured destruction which we called MAD and it was that they knew that if they dropped a bomb on New York City we’d hit back and wipe them out and that was supposed to deter them from doing any bad attack. But the Muslims are different; they seem to like to commit suicide. I don’t think they are going to be deterred by that type of an attitude and we have to make sure that we have the weapons that are enough to scare them that they never attack in the first place.

Anti-Muslim Activists Claim Obama and Brennan Are Likely to Be Secret Muslim Agents

John Guandolo, who left the FBI after a sex scandal, has since tried to make a career pushing anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and has found success with his latest one: that CIA chief nominee John Brennan is a secret Muslim and Saudi plant.

Fellow conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles invited Guandolo on his show TruNews yesterday to explain his theory that Brennan is seeking to “aid and abet the enemy” through assistance to Muslim Brotherhood agents who are infiltrating the government as part of a plot to introduce Sharia law to the US.

Wiles agreed with Guandolo’s assessment and claimed that Saudi Arabia is slowly taking over the United States government and “put Barack Obama in power.”

The host went on to say that “Barack Obama is a foreign agent” and “his administration is the product of a successful foreign penetration of the country” by Islamists. “The federal government is quietly being taken over and changed into a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian entity,” Wiles maintained.

In response, Guandolo strongly suggested that President Obama is indeed a Muslim although he said he couldn’t offer a “100 percent guarantee,” adding that he believes Obama “is significantly sympathetic to the cause of our enemies.” He also falsely claimed that the Islamic Society of North America is a front group for Hamas.

Guandolo: I want to answer your question or your comment about the President and this admiration. I do not have specific evidence that 100 percent guarantees that this President is Muslim and my first comment is I don’t think it matters. You just said what does matter. I look at his policies and his executive orders and without exception they are pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Hamas, anti-foundational principles of this country, anti-Israel, and that is absolutely clear. He has made a significant effort to protect known members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood inside this government.



Wiles: Well John, you know the old saying: if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

Guandolo: Yes and there is certainly a lot not circumstantial evidence of data points, facts that we know even out of the President’s own mouth, when he did that interview with George Stephanopoulos and he said ‘my Muslim faith’ and Mr. Stephanopoulos had to correct him and say ‘you mean your Christian faith’ and he said ‘oh yes that’s what I mean.’

Wiles: He let it slip.

Guandolo: As an FBI agent, I spent twelve years in the bureau, I look at that and I say, when you line all these things up it at a minimum it means here’s an individual who is significantly sympathetic to the cause of our enemies and that is problematic, and that’s putting it mildly.

Guandolo concluded by arguing that President Obama and other top officials “are absolutely not upholding their oath of office and need to be removed.”

You have to ask yourself, are all of these people, are they grossly ignorant or maybe in some cases so PC as to get to a place where everything that comes out of their mouths and the policies that they create are destructive to America and if that’s the truth and they are then they are absolutely not upholding their oath of office and need to be removed. Then the question is, what do we do about all of this? That I believe is the question that has got to be addressed because wishing this away and hoping that it doesn’t get worse, you know hope is not a strategy, there has to be work at the ground level to take this on and to end this.

Farah: National Debt Violates at Least Two of the Ten Commandments

WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah has a new project: erecting billboards listing the Ten Commandments in major American cities. So far, he just has a handful of billboards up in Las Vegas, but he’s hoping that eventually he will be able to fund “hundreds of thousands” of them across the country. Farah joined Janet Mefferd yesterday to talk about the campaign, telling her that our economic troubles are “just a symptom, frankly, of a moral problem,” namely that the national debt violates the biblical commandments against covetousness and stealing.

Farah might be interested to learn that the United States has held a public debt for all but one year of its history, meaning that by his own definition even his beloved Founding Fathers and Honorary Founding Father Ronald Reagan were complicit in violating the Ten Commandments.

Mefferd: What concerns you most about our country right now, what do you think is the greatest, you know, sin, greatest moral failure in our country that most needs this reminder that God has issued us these Ten Commandments?

Farah: Well, you know, I think if you ask most people what the biggest problem we face, it’s in our economy, is being devastated. But I think that’s just a symptom, frankly, of a moral problem at the very basis of that. You know, when you decide, for instance, as a nation, that you’re going to spend your grandchildren’s money and their great-great-grandchildren’s money racking up debt that, you know, people will be paying off for generations, that is covetousness, that’s stealing. How many commandments are we breaking right there?

Mefferd: That’s right.

Farah: And, you know, again, I’m not trying to make this a materialistic thing, but what I’m saying is, it all ties in together. When you turn away from God…you know what, God gives us the desires of our heart. And when we decide we don’t want any part of God, he allows us to make that decision and live with the consequences. And I believe that’s what we’re, what’s happening to America right now, we’re spiraling down and we’re, you know, we’re not the nation we used to be. And unless we turn around and we follow that 2 Chronicles 7:14 prescription, we’re going to continue in that direction.

 

Voting Discrimination: Still an Obstacle to Democracy

This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a case challenging the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Based on a simple idea, one that is enshrined in our Constitution, the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race. It is considered by the Department of Justice to be "the most effective civil rights statute enacted by Congress," prohibiting voting discrimination in order to protect the right to vote for all Americans.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he called the vote "the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice" and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called it the "foundation stone for political action." I call it a sacred right!

The centerpiece of that Act and the case is Section 5. It requires that all or portions of sixteen states with a history and a contemporary record of voting discrimination seek and gain approval federally before they put any changes in election practices into effect. Preclearance as it is known is intended to stop voter disenfranchisement before it can start.

In 1970 and again in 1975, Congress voted to extend the Voting Rights Act. At that time US Representative Barbara Jordan, my (s)hero and co-founder of People For the American Way, sponsored legislation that broadened the provisions of the Act to include Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

As recently as 2006, Congress voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize Section 5 of the law with some critics then and now misguidedly asserting that it overstepped its boundaries, that voting discrimination really isn't a problem anymore, or that voting discrimination in other parts of the country somehow delegitimizes Section 5. I'd like to invite those critics to hear directly from people across the country who devoted countless hours to ensuring that marginalized communities were able to vote this past election.

In 2011 and 2012 I organized faith leaders from 22 states in combating voter suppression efforts and turning out the vote among specific communities. This election cycle offered many powerful reminders why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Texas, for example, passed a discriminatory voter ID law that would have required voters to present government-issued photo ID at the polls, which would have especially burdened poor people and people of color. But because Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still stands, this law was defeated and the right to vote was protected. Reverend Simeon L. Queen of Houston, Texas, a comrade in the struggle, reflected: "It is inexcusable that nearly 50 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, politicians are still trying to make it harder for African Americans in Texas to vote. I wish the Voting Rights Act wasn't still necessary, but thank the Lord it's still there."

Since 1980 I have been fortunate to work with men and women, some who started before I was born, to fight for laws protecting the right to vote. Despite the commitment of those who devoted their lives to voter protections, the right to vote remains fragile for many Americans. From voter ID laws to restrictions on early voting, as a country we cannot allow anyone to say "this isn't a problem anymore" to communities who are experiencing, as others witness, those problems at the polls each election.

President Johnson called the vote "a powerful instrument," Dr. King the "foundation stone," and for me it's a sacred right for breaking down injustice, removing obstacles to democracy and empowering the dis-empowered. When discriminatory laws threaten Americans' fundamental right to vote, we are called to utilize every tool available. Across the country we have seen the importance of courts in successfully fighting back against voter suppression efforts. Section 5 remains a key to protecting communities, my community from future attempts at disenfranchisement. Hopefully, prayerfully, the Supreme Court will realize this.

 This post originally appeared at the Huffington Post.

 

PFAW Foundation

Fischer: 'There Is No Right to Engage in Immoral Behavior'

On yesterday's radio program, Bryan Fischer went after President Obama for refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, calling it a violation of his oath of office before declaring that people do not have any right whatsoever to engage in homosexual acts: "They don't have a moral right to do it, they don't have an ethical right to do it, they don't have a right to do it according to the laws of nature, and most importantly they do not have a right to do it according to the laws of God; and beyond that they do not have a right to do it according to the Constitution of the United States."

In fact, Fischer argued, since all rights come from God, "no law can give you a right to do something that is immoral" and thus "there is no right to engage in immoral behavior":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious