Irony Becomes the Latest Casualty in the 'War on Christmas'

Every year, a handful of conservative pundits and Religious Right activists launch a "war on Christmas" to pressure retailers to use the word "Christmas" in their advertising and displays instead of phrases like "happy holidays" on the grounds that not mentioning Christmas is wildly offensive to Christians.

So it is more than a little ironic to see Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, one of the leaders of this annual "war on Christmas" crusade, complaining about companies and municipalities that bow to the "tyranny of the minority" by changing their holiday displays "in order to not offend a kind of obnoxious few people who are looking around every corner to find some reason to be offended": 

Arthur Goldberg Likens his Embattled Ex-Gay Therapy Group to Weight Watchers

Before founding the ex-gay therapy group JONAH, Arthur Goldberg was an investor convicted on felony charges and served time in prison for mail fraud and conspiracy. But the con man is being hailed as a hero by the Religious Right now that he is going up against the Southern Poverty Law Center in court, which is representing several customers of his New Jersey-based organization who are suing him for consumer fraud. Goldberg, however, will be unable to represent himself as he has been disbarred.

While speaking to American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on AFA Today, Goldberg denied the SPLC’s claims that he defrauded customers by advertising that his group is able to “cure clients of being gay,” for example by instructing a group of men to “remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle” alongside a nude “counselor.”

Goldberg told Wildmon and Perkins that filing suit against an ex-gay therapy organization is like suing Weight Watchers for failing to lose weight through their program.

WND: Is Grover Norquist Pushing the New World Order?

Many right-wing extremists loathe Grover Norquist because they think he is a secret Muslim and Muslim Brotherhood operative and argue that his strict opposition to any and all tax increases doesn’t excuse his supposed support for “jihadists undermining our Republic with Sharia.” WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, apparently trying to find new ways to top his other hilariously ridiculous columns, now asserts that Norquist is using his strict focus on tax issues to keep “rank-and-file Republicans distracted” as Democrats turn the U.S. into a socialist “oligarchical collective,” with the help of the Council on Foreign Relations and possibly even the New World Order.

Lately, some of our long-respected conservative commentators have also shown themselves to be … well, not nearly as smart as we thought they were, or else complicit in this elitist subjugation of the republic. Whether they have always been of these sentiments or if they’ve developed a different view of socialism now that their nests are well-feathered is unknown to me; such knowledge would be of no practical use to us in any event. We’ve seen an election that speaks to a dangerous shift in the worldview of our electorate, widespread election fraud, or both, and these fools continue their attempts to wax profound in their nightly analyses. As the country crumbles around us, they cavalierly pontificate, overcomplicating something that is very simple: a Marxist thug installing an oligarchical collective where a republic once stood.



Norquist is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which qualifies him for a place in Satan’s pantheon of arch-devils, in the view of many hard-line conservatives and libertarians. The CFR, one of several politically eclectic organizations wherein there is a queer overlap between Democratic and Republican power players, is considered to be instrumental in many “New World Order” conspiracy theories, some of which appear much less theoretical these days. So, Norquist is either doing an abysmal job of “really running” the GOP, or he is – as I charge many Republican leaders are doing – simply keeping rank-and-file Republicans distracted while the socialists go their merry unmolested way.

I would suggest that conservatives prepare to employ uncompromising and brutal honesty when discerning the character of those who sell themselves as conservatives. This will not be easy. There is a large crop of politicians and commentators whom many of us have heretofore admired who may need to go under the bus with all due speed.

Fischer: Michelangelo Signorile Supports the Death Penalty for Gays

Shortly before the election, gay radio talk-show host Michelangelo Signorile got into a discussion with a gay Mitt Romney supporter who called into the program to defend his vote for Romney, which prompted Signorile to tell the caller that he would be better off committing suicide than "waiting for the slow, painful death that Mitt Romney will bring you."

Signorile apologized the following day, saying there was no excuse for what he said and admitting that it was a "total botch up."

But that apology means nothing to Bryan Fischer, who has literally never apologized for any of the hundreds of bigoted things he has said on air because he means every word of it, and is instead proof that, unlike himself, Signorile approves of the death penalty for homosexuals:

Right Wing Round-Up - 11/28/12

Right Wing Leftovers - 11/28/12

  • Gary Bauer says "Governor-elect Mike Pence of Indiana was a favorite choice at a recent meeting of conservative leaders and activists" for the GOP presidential nominee in 2016.
  • Is Red State's Erick Erickson really mulling a primary challenge to Sen. Saxby Chambliss?  Does he really not realize that he has a long, documented history of saying crazy things on the internet? 
  • Mat Staver dismisses all those conservative poseurs who now support immigration reform, because he supported it way before it was cool! 
  • Peter Sprigg tries to argue that the recent election wins for marriage equality "provide evidence that a solid majority of Americans nationwide still opposes same-sex marriage."
  • Janet Porter is not giving up on her "Heartbeat Bill."
  • Gary Cass is angry again: "Barack Obama has continually mocked and ridiculed the very teachings and values of Scripture. He’s used Scripture to condone behavior that is outright unbiblical. He denies the exclusivity of Christ and the need for Christ’s atoning blood. And now Obama’s followers tout him as their savior!"
  • The Family Research Council hails Uganda: "Thank God for leaders who stand boldly for Jesus, understand the curse of sin, and know God and His blessing are a nation's greatest possession. May God raise up such leaders in America and every nation!"
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer says the "war on Christmas" is really a war on Christ:

 

AFA's Sandy Rios Wonders why Susan Rice Supports LGBT Rights: 'Is She Straight?'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios interviewed Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) to discuss Ruse’s efforts at the United Nations. Ruse is a staunch critic of the Obama administration’s initiative supporting LGBT rights abroad, even opposing efforts to prevent anti-LGBT violence. While speaking to Rios, he criticized the General Assembly for passing a resolution condemning extrajudicial executions, including killings based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Ruse then mocked UN Ambassador Susan Rice for tweeting, “We will not allow the remarkable progress the UN has made on LGBT issues in the last four years to be rolled back,” leading to Rios to ask: “is she straight?”

Ruse did not know, to Rios’s dismay. Rice is married to television producer Ian Cameron and has two children.

Rios: I remember her only vaguely but I remember bad things about her during the Clinton years, but I don’t remember what those things were. What’s your perception? What do you see in Susan Rice as the UN Ambassador?

Ruse: There was a big vote in the UN General Assembly last week, a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it. Gender identity has never appeared in a UN document, it appeared in a document last week. Immediately, Susan Rice tweeted that ‘LGBT human rights have made a major stride and we will not go back.’ They are very aggressive on sexual orientation and gender identity and Susan Rice is leading the charge.

Rios: Is she straight?

Ruse: I have no idea.

Rios: We don’t know do we [sigh].

Wildmon: Obama Should be Impeached Over Attack in Libya

Frank Gaffney was the guest on AFA's "Today's Issues" radio program this morning to discuss the Right's ongoing obsession with the conspiracy that there has been a systematic cover-up of the attack in Benghazi, Libya back in September.  The conspiracy theory now runs so deep that it prompted Tim Wildmon to go off on an extended rant about how President Obama and his administration lied and "intentionally misled the American people" about what happened in order to protect him ahead of the election.  As such, Wildmon asserted, this "scandal" is worse than Watergate and that had this happened back in 1973, Obama would have been unanimously impeached:

Hagee: ID Cards are not the Mark of the Beast

Recently, the San Antonio, Texas school district has become embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the family of a student who is refusing to wear a mandatory student ID card embedded with a RFID tracking chip on the grounds that such chips are a "Mark of the Beast."

Yesterday on the "Hagee Hotline," John Hagee sought to reassure his audience that these sorts of ID cards are not the Mark of the Beast ... because that won't come until after the Rapture and the chips will be directly implanted in people's bodies. So it's not until the government starts forcing people to get implanted with such chips and "to keep laws that you don't want to keep," Hagee explained, "that you're in trouble": 

Mat Staver Continues the Crusade Against Obamacare

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver recently appeared on Janet Parshall’s radio show to promote his claim that the health care reform law is unconstitutional and an immense “setback to religious liberty.” While representing Liberty University, Staver sued over the health care law’s individual mandate in 2010, but the Supreme Court ruled in June that the mandate was constitutional. Over the summer, Liberty asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its arguments against the employer mandate and the contraceptive coverage mandate, which it said were not addressed by the court’s ruling. The court agreed to the request and told the 4th Circuit to hear arguments on the two pieces.

While speaking to Parshall, Staver fueled the myth that Obamacare is “a frontal assault to religious freedom” and that employers and individuals are “being forced to fund abortion.” Staver drew no difference between abortion and contraceptives in his assertions, and echoed the misconceptions of many Religious Right groups and conservative politicians who argue that the mandate compels religious individuals pay for abortion coverage.

But no part of Obamacare actually coerces anyone to fund abortion coverage. Women who choose health plans that do cover abortion must pay a separate premium out of their own pockets. Because insurers must assess a $1 per month surcharge on all enrollees in the plan to take into account the cost savings of abortion, anti-choice activists are complaining that this constitutes taxpayer funding for abortion.

Although a conscience clause was added allowing churches who object to birth control to be exempt from the requirement, many religious leaders argue that this exemption is not wide enough.

Precedents have already been set that counter Staver’s claims, as several judges have ruled that Obamacare does not violate the religious freedom of employers that do not want to cover contraceptives. A pivotal Supreme Court opinion previously established that a law that applies uniformly to the faithful and the non-faithful alike does not violate the First Amendment. Though individuals are still free to exercise their religion by abstaining from using contraceptives, Staver contends that the law is “[telling] you what to believe [and] how to practice.”

Staver: This is something that’s either or. Either we follow our religious conviction that life is sacred and it begins in the womb, and disobey Obamacare and pay the penalties for it, or we obey Obamacare and disobey our religious convictions and conscious. There is no in between. It is a frontal assault to religious freedom unprecedented in its scope since the founding of its country. So this I think is a very strong argument as we go back to the high court, and in addition to the free exercise for Liberty University and other religious employers, we have the free exercise claim for all individuals. Because in addition to being forced to fund abortion from an employer’s perspective, individuals are also forced to have a fee assessed which goes to funding abortion.



Parshall: If they say, you know what, too bad government has the right here, religious liberty, that’s nice, not now, not here, what would be the impact of religious liberty, far beyond the boundaries of Liberty University’s campus, what would it mean for the church capital C universal as well?

Staver: Oh it would be huge in terms of its setback to religious liberty because this is a classic conflict. A lot of times you have laws that, you know maybe an irritant, you know for example you might want to use a library for a room that’s a common meeting and you might want to have prayers and somebody says no you can’t do that because its religious speech. Well sort of another free speech issue the question is, is this a free religion exercise? It may be, but you know the argument would be well, you can still practice your religion, we’re not telling you what to believe, what to practice, but this here tells you what to believe, it tells you how to practice, it is a core component of your belief. So, if we were to lose on this issue, wow, I mean the implications of that would be huge, it would mean that the government, for the first time in history, is able to pass a law that directly conflicts with a religious belief.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious