Illinois Family Institute Warns Of 'Eternal' Consequences For Notre Dame LGBT Group

The Illinois Family Institute, the state affiliate of the American Family Association that led the unsuccessful fight against marriage equality last year, is back to fighting smaller battles, this time attacking the University of Notre Dame for officially recognizing an LGBT group.

In an open letter to Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins posted on IFI’s website, the group’s “cultural analyst” Laurie Higgins expresses her “disappointment” that Notre Dame has for the first time recognized a student LGBT group, or as she calls it, “those who affirm homosexual acts and acts related to gender confusion as normative and morally defensible.”

Higgins tells Jenkins that in recognizing its LGBT students, Notre Dame might as well affirm “other sin predispositions” like incest or pedophilia.

She then turns to the eternal consequences of LGBT organizing, warning that openly LGBT students will bring “nothing but temporal and eternal harm” to themselves and their colleagues.

I also want to express my disappointment that Notre Dame has chosen to recognize a “student organization” initiated and shaped by those who affirm homosexual acts and acts related to gender confusion as normative and morally defensible. In permitting an organization that affirms subjective moral propositions that defy Catholic (as well as orthodox Protestant) doctrine, Notre Dame’s distinct Catholic identity has been weakened. Would Notre Dame recognize other “student organizations” initiated by those who affirm other sin predispositions (e.g. polyamory, consensual adult incest, or the “sexual orientation” recently designated “minor-attracted persons”)?


If the Notre Dame-recognized “LGBT” organization had been initiated by those who were committed to helping “LGBT” students live lives that embody Catholic beliefs on sexuality and gender, such an organization would be a service to Notre Dame students. Unfortunately, the central goals of students who affirm a homosexual or “transgender” identity are contrary to Catholic doctrine and as such can bring nothing but temporal and eternal harm—intellectual, emotional, physical, and/or spiritual harm—to “LGBT”-identifying students and the larger Notre Dame community.

Higgins did, however, praise Jenkins for Notre Dame’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate.

Sound Familiar? Once Again, Anti-Gambling Republicans Secretly Work With Indian Casinos

A New York Times report this weekend on national groups coordinating to win state-level elections noted the revelation, which first surfaced last fall, that Alabama Republicans worked to funnel money from Indian casinos to support candidates running on anti-gambling platforms in 2010.

The casinos opposed the expansion of gambling as part of plan to quash competition; meanwhile, state Republicans needed an influx of money to help them win control of the state legislature.

Alabama GOP chairman Mike Hubbard and state senator Del Marsh, who also serves as the state party’s finance chairman, worked with an Indian tribe to direct money to the Washington-based Republican State Leadership Committee. The RSLC, run by former RNC chairman and likely Virginia senate candidate Ed Gillespie, then passed the funds on to Alabama Republicans, thus shielding anti-gambling candidates from a public association with tribal casinos.

The arrangement also offered donors a way to help Mr. Hubbard without their checks showing up on the Alabama party’s public filings. One such supporter was the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, which operates several large casinos on tribal land in Alabama.

The tribe was wary of the rapid expansion of non-Indian gambling in the state, particularly the proliferation of small bingo parlors competing with their resort casinos, and stood to benefit if antigambling Republicans took control of the Legislature. But precisely because they opposed gambling, few Republican state lawmakers or candidates would accept the tribe’s contributions.

After meeting with Mr. Marsh and other Republicans, said Robert R. McGhee, director of government affairs for the tribe, the tribe chose a different approach: It donated $350,000 to the leadership committee. When the contributions were later disclosed, critics accused Mr. Hubbard of using the Washington group to launder the money by exchanging it with other contributions.

If this story sounds familiar to you, that might be because disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed — who once led the Christian Coalition and now runs the Faith & Freedom Coalition — hatched a similar plan in the late 1990s to raise money from Indian casinos to back the “anti-gambling” Christian Coalition in order to stifle their gambling industry competitors.

In 1999, Abramoff subcontracted Reed’s firm to generate opposition to attempts to legalize a state-sponsored lottery and video poker in Alabama, an effort that was bankrolled by the Choctaw Tribe in order to eliminate competition to its own casino in neighboring Mississippi.[67] Reed promised that Century Strategies was “opening the bomb bays and holding nothing back” and his firm ultimately received $1.3 million from the Choctaws for this effort, which included engaging the Alabama chapter of the Christian Coalition, as well as influential right-wing figures such as James Dobson, to work to defeat the proposals. [68]

The strategy had one small problem: the Alabama Christian Coalition had an explicit policy that it “will not be the recipient of any funds direct or in-direct or any in-kind direct or indirect from gambling interests.” (Emphasis in original.)[69] Knowing this, Reed and Abramoff worked to hide the source of the $850,000 paid to the Christian Coalition for its anti-gambling efforts by funneling money from the Choctaws through Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington, DC anti-tax organization headed by their old College Republican friend Grover Norquist.[70] When asked why the tribe’s money had to be funneled through conduits such as ATR, a Choctaw representative stated it was because Reed did not want it known that casino money was funding his operation: “It was our understanding that the structure was recommended by Jack Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reed’s political concerns.”[71]

Nonetheless, Reed repeatedly assured the Christian Coalition that the funding for its work was not coming from gambling interests. This was technically true as the Choctaws were paying for it out of their non-gambling revenue, though their objective was obviously to protect their own gambling interests and revenue.[72] According to emails obtained during a Senate investigation into Abramoff’s activities and reported in the media, Reed was well aware of who was paying for this anti-gambling effort. When the information began to surface in the press and the Christian Coalition learned of the source of the $850,000 it had received, it demanded an explanation from Reed who apologized in a letter saying he should have “explained that the contributions came from the Choctaws,”[73] this admitting that he had been fully aware of the source of the funding. But by the time Reed offered his “after-the-fact apology,” the gambling initiative had been defeated and the Christian Coalition had been duped.[74]

When word of Reed’s work for Abramoff first broke, Reed claimed that he had “no direct knowledge of [Abramoff’s lobbying firm’s] clients or their interests.”[75] But according to the report recently released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Abramoff’s bilking of the tribes, Reed was informed by Abramoff as early as 1999 that the money that was funding his anti-gambling operations was coming from the casino-owning Choctaw tribe.

The report published an email Abramoff sent to Reed instructing him to “page me with a page of no more than 90 words ... informing me of your completion of the budget and giving me a total budget figure with category breakdowns. Once I get this, I will call Nell [Rodgers] at Choctaw and get it approved.” A subsequent email to Reed asked him to send “invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks asap.”[76]

Thus, Reed was clearly aware that the funding for his anti-gambling work was coming from the Choctaw and that he was indirectly working to protect the tribe’s multi-million dollar gambling interests. Despite the repeated references to the Choctaw in Abramoff’s emails, Reed continued to publicly insist that he did not know the source of the funding.[77]

Klingenschmitt: Drug-Induced Hallucinations Are Demonic Spirits

"Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt finally returned to his "Pray In Jesus Name" program today after several weeks away, kicking of the first program with a segment opposing the legalization of marijuana in his home state of Colorado by warning that a demonic spirit of addiction was at work and that people were opening themselves up to possession by using recreational drugs.

"There is a demonic spirit of drunkenness," Klingenschmitt said, "but this drunkenness, this desire for pleasure where we invite these spirits into us ... and why do you think you have hallucinations? These spiritual visions that you have are not just biological; they're actually demonic":

Garrow: Obama Deserves To Be Killed For Treason

Jim Garrow insists that he wants nothing to do with people calling for President Obama to be killed…unless they are calling for Obama to be put to death because he is guilty of treason, in which case Garrow is on board.

Hang Em (read to the end):

If you are foolish enough to put treasonous statements or murderous statements regarding the occupant of the White House, I must notify you that I will defriend you. If you are not aware yet that the NSA, FBI, and a score of alphabet agencies of the Federal government are watching and monitoring your activities, then you need to add "ignorant" to the adjectives that must be used to describe you. To speak of the actions of the President as illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral is to speak the truth within the confines of law and right. To protest his actions and to demand his arrest or his removal for these actions is also to speak withing [sic] the confines of right and law.

The line is crossed when one demands the death of the President, or physical actions that could be seen as assault. Counseling such would be a violation of law. If you speak to issues that you believe to be treasonous or seditious and you describe the punishments set out in law for those breaches of law, then you are within your right and law in those descriptions.

So folks take care to act within law and rights defined in the Constitution. To be outraged and emotional puts you in the same "boat" as myself. But to cross the line into that which is a breach of law necessitates that I distance myself from you. A final thought however. If a person is found guilty of treason or sedition, they should be hung, or shot, or using a new corollary to those methods of punishment approved for capital offenses, beheading (it has been added), then you merely call for justice. In which case and context, I would certainly approve. (emphasis mine)

- Dr. Jim Garrow –

Of course, such claims aren’t new from Garrow, who recently agreed with Erik Rush that Obama should be executed:

Garrow: This call for the removal of the president is highly appropriate; in fact it is appropriate given what the alternative would be. If in fact this man is doing the things that he is being reported to be doing, he needs to be removed, he needs to be in fact tried for treason and of course the finality of that is a man gets either put up against a wall and shot or hung. Treason is not to be stood for — ever — and that’s what we have right now in the White House. Paul [Vallely] isn’t talking about the nuclear side of it but I know they are letting me do that and take bullets.

Rush: Aside from the fact that as I mentioned before you came one, Obama remains the consummate BS artist and actor. Despite all of that, I’m sure that he knows what the alternative is should he fail, should we succeed, should these things come out and be widely known and if he were to be removed I’m sure that he knows that the penalties for such actions that he has taken do fall within those unpleasant realms of execution and all of that unpleasant stuff. I think it is very noteworthy that General Vallely has come out and said that impeachment is not the way to go, he’s talking about making the President’s position so untenable that those in Congress right up to the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader and all of those folks, action has to be taken and making things essentially not work, they won’t be able to get anything done for all of the political upheaval. He is talking about peaceful demonstrations.

Garrow: He’s also talking about the removal of Mr. Obama and to remove him has all sorts of ramifications and implications. How do you remove him? Frankly, we have sheriffs in the country who by law have the right to arrest people. They’re the guys, if someone was going to go in and arrest the president, it would be probably a sheriff along with military to back him up because you still got the Secret Service, you still got people who are there to protect the President, and they have to be contended with. Whether it would be legal or lawful to do it would be answered after the bullets were fired.

WND's Kupelian: Obama Might Fake An Assassination Attempt

WorldNetDaily editor David Kupelian believes that President Obama is going to engineer several “manufactured crises” -- including the collapse of the private health care system -- manipulate the science behind climate change and maybe even fake an assassination attempt, in order to expand his political power and create a “socialist state.”

In a column today, Kupelian bizarrely reasons that if the country were stable and prosperous, then “Obama and his agenda would be seen for what they really are, and he would be swiftly and surely impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.”

He writes that Obama is waging a “spiritual war” on Americans that involves “breaking us, body, mind and spirit,” and claims that Obama is responsible for that fact that “America is becoming increasingly angry, confused, depressed, sick, conflicted, addicted, suicidal, faithless and hopeless.”

Therefore, the president must create crises in order to hold onto authority and even create a one-world government, including possibly even faking an assassination plot that would “justify and even necessitate Obama’s violations of Americans’ core liberties – gun control and confiscation, censorship of conservative news and talk radio as ‘hate speech,’ the growing police state, advanced surveillance state and so on.”

Consider what would happen if, magically, there were no major societal crises in America today, and if most citizens – as has been the case in some earlier eras – were content, family-oriented, free and grateful for the blessings of living in this uniquely blessed country. Obama and his agenda would be seen for what they really are, and he would be swiftly and surely impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.



But to rule like a dictator from his White House inner sanctum, and to succeed in moving the progressive agenda continually forward, one more thing is necessary: Obama needs crises. Otherwise, the spell of deception tends to break and too many people wake up and complain … and vote.

Therefore, 2014 could be called “the year of manufactured crises.”



Obama and his team may push to resolve the insurance crisis they have strategically created by “transitioning” America into “single payer” – a bloodless euphemism for full-bore socialism, where the federal government literally controls everyone’s health care and, therefore, their very lives. Good-bye freedom.

To accomplish this, Team Obama would need to: 1) destroy America’s private insurance industry, which it is currently attempting, 2) declare the hybrid Obamacare system (a cross between free-market and socialized medicine) a failure due to Republican sabotage and insurance companies’ greed and intransigence and 3) decree that, with no way back to a functional private insurance sector, and with Americans in total crisis regarding health care, the only sensible solution is for America to “join the rest of the civilized world, including Britain, Canada and Europe, and make health care a universal right and part of the government’s compact with her people.”

Remember, “single-payer” is what Obama and Democrat leaders have long claimed – publicly – as their real goal.

However, you can’t get there from here without constantly creating crises as springboards. In this case, Obamacare, which was packaged and gift-wrapped as the solution to the flaws in America’s health-care system, is actually a crisis-causing “transition” stage between free-market health care and a socialist state.



But for Obama, obsessing over “climate change” (ironically, meeting with his new global warming task force while a snowstorm shut down the federal government) is more than just a way of changing the subject and diverting attention from Obamacare. Global warming is, itself, another huge manufactured crisis, its real purpose being massive worldwide wealth distribution under the United Nations.

Christopher Monckton, who advised the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on issues including global warming, says “the sole purpose of the climate scam, as the U.N. [sees] it, [is] to serve as a Trojan horse allowing it to achieve its long-held ambition of destroying national sovereignty and transferring all real political power to itself.”

“If America stands firm for just a few more years,” he added, “until it becomes obvious to all that the mad scientists were more concerned with grants than with truth, we may yet prevent the world government that Mr. Ban [Ki-moon, U.N. secretary-general] longs for.”



Remember this: Obama and his team want you to be frustrated and resentful. They will wear you out and steal your strength that way. Think about it.

Look at today’s health statistics: America is becoming increasingly angry, confused, depressed, sick, conflicted, addicted, suicidal, faithless and hopeless. The kind of stress and pressure the Obama left intentionally inflicts on the rest of America is designed to “transform” us, yes, but by first breaking us, body, mind and spirit.

Friends, this is a spiritual war, and goes way beyond matters of law, politics and policy. That’s why constant crisis is literally the fabric – the warp and weft – of Barack Obama’s “transformational” presidency.

A final warning: There is one perfect crisis for Obama and the entire progressive left, one event that would serve as the ultimate validation of all their delusions, fantasies and projections, something that would validate every prejudice, lie, unworkable idea and failed policy they espouse.

The one event that would be Barack Obama’s grand-slam homerun would be if, in response to the ever-increasing outrages and provocations of the left, someone on “the right” becomes unhinged and goes violent in a big way.

That terrible event would constitute the perfect answer to all Obama’s problems, the fulfillment of the left’s fondest dreams. Haven’t you wondered why the liberal media are always painting the tea party as racist without a shred of evidence, and are always hoping out loud that every new terror act or school shooting was perpetrated by a conservative? Didn’t you see how the media fell over one another trying to portray – ridiculously and incorrectly – the Boston Marathon-bombing Tsarnaev brothers as right-wingers, and how ABC News reported – ridiculously and incorrectly – that the Aurora, Colo., movie theater mass shooter might be a tea-party member, and how the Department of Homeland Security painted pro-lifers, constitutionalists, libertarians, NRA members and returning war veterans as potential “right-wing extremists” and terrorists?

Why do they do this? Because, in their imaginations at least, violence on the right would validate their narrative. Worse, it would finally seem to justify and even necessitate Obama’s violations of Americans’ core liberties – gun control and confiscation, censorship of conservative news and talk radio as “hate speech,” the growing police state, advanced surveillance state and so on. All would be seen as necessary restraints against all those conservative terrorists out there.

Of course, in the turmoil (and secret left-wing revelry) over a major “right-wing terror attack,” forgotten and irrelevant would be the fact that you – and tens of millions like you – are being forced to obtain new and much more expensive health-care insurance. After all, we’re under attack by right-wing extremists! It’s the perfect crisis.

Right Wing Round-Up - 1/10/14

Right Wing Leftovers - 1/10/14

  • Good point, Gary Bauer: "Ted Kennedy can drive a woman off a bridge and go on to serve decades in the Senate and be hailed as a courageous leader. But if a Republican shuts down a bridge, the left is ready to breakout the pitchforks."
  • It is time for the church to start preparing for the fall of America.
  • Eugene Delgaudio's Public Advocate will be protesting Terry McAuliffe's inauguration.
  • Speaking of Delgaudio, you would think that, at some point, the voters in Loudoun County would grow tired of being embarrassed by him and vote him out of office.
  • Glenn Beck's public opposition to throwing gays into the ovens causing him to lose supporters.
  • Finally, speaking of Beck, we genuinely have no idea what this latest conspiracy theory is that he promotes at the beginning of this clip.

Creationists Offer Advice On Fighting 'The Homosexual War'

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the group that runs the Kentucky-based Creation Museum, is offering members a new DVD called “The Homosexual War: A Biblical View.”

The DVD shows a lecture that Todd Friel of Wretched Radio delivered at AIG’s 2013 Mega Conference, in which he gave the message that while “homosexuals are victoriously waving the rainbow flag,” it is now “time to raise the Christian flag.”

For years, Christians have been waving the American flag. Today, homosexuals are victoriously waving the rainbow flag. Some would suggest it is time for us to raise the white flag. Perhaps there is a better, more biblical option.

Satan doesn’t care if America endorses heterosexual or homosexual marriage, as long as people go to hell. He knows that it doesn’t matter if a nation is moral, as long as people die in their sins.

A good general who suffers defeat does not continue with the same strategy; he wisely assesses the situation and formulates a different plan. It is time for Christians to be wise and reconsider our battle plan: Has our current strategy been working? What does the Bible say our assignment is? Have we been engaged in the right battle?

Rather than raising the white flag, perhaps it is time to raise the Christian flag. While political engagement is important, we are commanded to evangelize and train, not simply win a campaign. Todd Friel challenges viewers to reconsider how we discuss homosexuality at church, how we respond to a child who “comes out,” and how we talk about gay people in the public realm.

Barber: Contraception Mandate Like Forcing Someone To Pay For A Hitman

On yesterday's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Mat Staver discussed the stay issued by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, temporarily blocking the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate from applying to an order of Catholic nuns known as the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Under the contraception mandate, religious organizations simply have to fill out a form declaring that the organization objects to having to provide contraception to its employees, which then obligates the insurance provider to provide such coverage separately.

But as Barber put it, this is unacceptable because it is no different than forcing a religious group to pay to hire a hit man to murder someone:

Barber: This is illusory, this compromise, this accommodation that the Obama administration and the HHS is calling it. It's a Chicago-style shell game. This is no different, the analogy that came to mind when I first heard about this so-called accommodation to religious organizations, it's like telling someone to go out and shoot somebody, to kill somebody. Because that's what we're talking about here, abortion is homicide, it's the taking of innocent human life. So we're saying you have fun going out and shooting somebody and you say 'no,no, I can't do that, I'm not going to do that.' And they say 'well, what we'll do is we'll set up a straw man; you have to sign on the dotted line so a hit man, on your behalf, can go out and kill somebody.' That's what we're talking about here.

In law, Mat, as you know, just because you hire out the murder doesn't mean that you're not responsible for the crime. It's still first degree murder. This is no different than what the Obama Administration is trying to do.

Staver: Even though you're not the one paying for the murder, but you're the one who sets it up and authorizes it, then you're still part of it.

Rep. Steve King Thinks The High Cost of Abortion For Low-Income Women Is Hilarious

At a House subcommittee hearing yesterday on a bill that would severely restrict access to insurance coverage for abortion, Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa mocked an expert who testified, accurately, that paying out of pocket for an abortion could cost a low-income woman more than a month’s rent.

Susan Wood, a George Washington University professor and former FDA official, told the all-male judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution that HR7 – which would make the Hyde Amendment permanentban federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortion and would permanently block the District of Columbia from spending local tax money on abortion services – could “virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the private insurance market” and would especially hurt low-income women, threatening to push them “deeper into poverty.”

“While it may not seem like a big expense to a Member of Congress, in these tough financial times, for many people, abortion care costs more than their monthly rent, putting it out of reach for their family’s pocketbook,” Wood said.

When it came time to ask questions, Rep. King mocked Wood’s comparison of the cost of abortion to a month’s rent, wondering, “I wonder how many abortions a month does she need to keep up with the monthly rent check.”

CNS News transcribed the exchange, which the anti-choice website LifeSiteNews described as “ humorous” :

Rep. King: “Okay, then your answer, then, would be that, in exceptional cases it may cost a woman more for a single abortion than it does for her one month of rent check. Is that an accurate way to depict what you said?”

Prof. Wood: “That’s correct.”

Rep. King: “Okay, because I wonder how many abortions a month does she need to keep up with the monthly rent check.”

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the average cost of a first-trimester abortion is between $450 and $500, depending on the method used; Planned Parenthood says a first-trimester abortion can cost up to $950. Later-term abortions, which are more rare, can cost many times that.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious