Barber & Crampton: Christians Must 'Rise Up' and 'Resist' if SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

On a recent "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Steve Crampton discussed the looming Supreme Court hearing over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act during which they declared that if the Court strikes it down, "it is high time the people rise up against the tyranny of the judiciary."

"If the judges foist this upon us, we need to resist," proclaimed Crampton, which prompted Barber to respond that Christians will have seriously consider civil disobedience, saying "in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr, it may be the time for peaceful civil disobedience when it comes to the fundamental deconstruction of our most fundamental institutions":

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/21/13

  • PFAW: Bush’s Court: How the D.C. Circuit Threatens the Future of Progressive Reform.
  • Zack Ford @ Think Progress: House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!
  • Meenal Vamburkar @ Mediaite: GOP Senator On Gay Marriage: ‘I’m Not Gay, So I’m Not Going To Marry One.’
  • Jeremy Hooper: FRC literally praying for Olson, Boies, et al. to have bad day in court.
  • Tim Murphy @ Mother Jones: Former Obama Official Compares Glenn Beck's Attacks to Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate."
  • David Edwards @ Raw Story: Bachmann: It’s my Christian ‘duty’ to repeal Obamacare before it ‘literally kills’ kids.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/21/13

  • Note to Michele Bachmann, when even Bill O'Reilly is ripping you to shreds, it is time to give it up.
  • Bryan Fischer wants to know why every lawyer working at the Department of Justice hasn't been disbarred for refusing to defend DOMA.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics says that parents’ sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development.  This is, of course, not sitting well with the anti-gay Religious Right.
  • Want to be in a movie being produced by Liberty Counsel and staring Erik Estrada? Of course you do! Auditions start tomorrow.
  • This is the actual title of a piece by CBN's David Brody: "Will the GOP's Inclusive Tone Bring About Its Demise?"
  • Finally, John Hagee says that smoking, like gluttony, is a sin:

Brad Dacus: 'A Compassionate Nation' Can't 'Salute' Homosexuality Because It's 'So Dangerous and So Destructive'

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute discussed the upcoming Supreme Court cases on marriage equality yesterday with host Jim Schneider on VCY America’s Crosstalk.

After a caller on the show ranted about how homosexuality is “Satanic,” Schneider called it an “anti-God lifestyle.” Dacus agreed and added that homosexuality, along with “looseness in the heterosexual community,” are signs that society is “openly waving our fist at God.”

Dacus said increasing support for marriage equality proves that people are unaware of the dangers of homosexuality: “When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts.”

“If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care,” Dacus explained, “then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.”

Schneider: We’re seeing a mass exodus Brad from those who once held to the belief to capitulate to the winds that are blowing today in our society and even a poll just released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News indicating support for same-sex marriage has never been higher, they claim that 58 percent of Americans now believe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed.

Dacus: It’s most unfortunate because it’s a slippery slope, number one, and number two they’re not taking into account the real meaning which is to dilute the sanctity and the definition of marriage that God has given us and that the laws of nature have given us and there’s going to be ramifications for that. When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts and so how anyone can think that it’s in the best interest of America, promoting our general welfare, to change our definition of marriage in view of the ramifications and impact, just purely from an objective and secular perspective, makes absolutely no sense and I think we need to be better communicators of that harm. If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care, then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.

He argued that the members of the United Methodist church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which decided not to perform marriages as long as same-sex couples are denied marriage rights, are “betrayers of the teachings of the Lord” and “have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church.”

Schneider: Another disturbing report came out Monday from CBS News that the Green Street United Methodist Church in North Carolina is actually electing to stop performing marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex marriage is legalized and asking other churches to join them. Brad, in cases like this all I see is the word Ichabod, “the glory of God has departed.”

Dacus: Yeah, when a church decides to take that position it’s discouraging to see them do that because they obviously have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church. They decided to follow the ways of man and “what tickles the ear of the day.” You know Galatians makes it very clear that we can’t be both pleasers of man and pleasers of God which means sometimes we’re not going to be very popular, sometimes when society decides to turn a different direction we can be rejected. But when you see churches do that and people holding themselves out as followers of the Lord and yet being betrayers of the teachings of the Lord and of scripture, it’s very serious to not only the congregation but it’s also especially serious to those in leadership positions abusing their authority.

David Barton Explains Just War Theory: 'We Had to Destroy Indian Tribes' Until They Became Civilized

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton was discussing just war theory which, in his unique interpretation, essentially boiled down to the view that whatever you need to do to end a conflict and protect the lives of your citizens and soldiers is justified.

To demonstrate his point, Barton said that Native Americans declared war on "all the white guys" because missionaries tried to convince them to stop torturing their enemies but they resisted these efforts to civilize them and "so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until" they got the message.

Barton followed that up by defending the practice of wiping out the buffalo on the western plains because it decimated the livelihoods of Native Americans and thereby brought an end to their resistance to the US government:

A lot of it is based on what you have to do to secure justice and to secure the protection of life and liberties for your citizens and you do what you have to do at times, but you play on the rules sometimes that the other guys have set up. And if they're not going to negotiate with things like the Geneva treaty or other rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens.

...

You have to deal, a lot of it, with how the enemy responds. It's got to be based on what the enemy responds [to,] you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists; and see that's why we could not get the Indians to the table to negotiate with us on treaties until after we had thoroughly whipped so many tribes ... What happened was the Indian leaders said "they're trying to change our culture" and so they declared war on all the white guys and went after the white guys and that was King Philip's War.  It was really trying to be civilized on one side and end torture and the Indians were threatened by the ending of torture and so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until they said "oh, got the point, you're doing to us what we're doing to them, okay, we'll sign a treaty."

...

Take, for example, what happened in the western plains wars in the late 1800s when we were taking on the plains Indians.  I'm not talking about treaties, I'm not talking about behavior of Americans toward Indians or vice versa, there were violations on both sides of nearly every treaty.  I'm talking about what happened in ending those wars after Custer and everything that went on.

People complain about the fact that the American military and buffalo hunters went out and wiped out all the buffalo in the western plains.  Doing that was what brought the Indians to their knees because the Indians lived on those wide western plains where there were very few towns; Indians didn't go into town to buy supplies, they went to the buffalo herds, that's where they got their meat, that's where they got their coats, the hides provided coats, they provided covering for their teepees. 

If you don't have the buffalos, those Indians cannot live on the open western plains without those buffalo and so what happened was the military wiped out the supply line by wiping out the buffalo.  That's what brought those wars to an end, that's what brought the Indians to their knees and ended all the western conflict.

Rand Paul's Abortion Exceptions Are Not Really Exceptions

Sen. Rand Paul’s chief of staff Doug Stafford appears to be scrambling to explain the Senator’s recent comments during a CNN interview where he said there would be “thousands of exceptions” to his “Life at Conception Act,” a federal personhood bill that would ban all abortion by granting legal status to embryos. He added that “each individual case would have to be addressed” and that there will “be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

Understandably, many people interpreted his comments to mean that the government shouldn’t be intruding on the medical decisions that are unique to each woman, or the opposite of what his sweeping anti-choice law would do.

But in an interview with LifeSiteNews, Stafford stressed that Paul’s mention of “thousands of exceptions” only “meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases.”

So the “thousands of exceptions” was only really one exception.

And when Paul said that women, their doctord and their families would be free from government interference during the early stage of the pregnancy, Stafford said that Paul was only referring to emergency contraception that prevents fertilization.

Emergency contraception, of course, only works up to 120 hours after sexual intercourse.

Stafford noted that such methods won’t be covered by the law because “it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” while stressing that Paul still seeks to ban RU-486.

Some pro-life activists were left scratching their heads after a recent interview Senator Rand Paul did on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show “The Situation Room,” in which the senator seemed to say he supported “thousands of exceptions” to his general belief that abortion should be illegal. But Paul spokesman Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Wednesday that the senator’s remarks were misunderstood, reiterating that Paul is staunchly pro-life.



After the interview, the Atlantic Wire ran a story with the headline “Rand Paul Isn’t 100% Pro-life Anymore,” arguing that the language Paul used in his answer sounded remarkably similar to pro-choice rhetoric claiming abortion should always be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

But Paul’s chief of staff, Doug Stafford, said the Atlantic got it wrong.

Paul “was speaking medically,” Stafford said.

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

The senator is not in favor of the more nebulous “health of the mother” exception that pro-life advocates argue can be applied to any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

But what about Paul’s statement that the Life at Conception Act may not be able to address early abortions? That, too, was a misunderstanding, according to Stafford. He said the senator was talking about things like emergency contraception pills, which may cause very early abortions, but since they contain the exact same drugs used in standard birth control pills, the senator believes they will be nearly impossible to ban.

Senator Paul “has always said it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” Stafford said. “It simply isn't possible to do so. The law will likely never be able to reach that.”

“You can legislate abortifacients like RU-486, and he would,” he said. “But you can’t legislatively ban artificial estrogen and progesterone.”

Bush’s Court: How the D.C. Circuit Threatens the Future of Progressive Reform

WASHINGTON – Four years into President Obama’s presidency, he has yet to  have a single judge confirmed to the hugely influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This lapse, caused initially by a slow start from the administration but perpetuated by a blockade of obstruction in the Senate, threatens to hinder progressive advances for years to come, argues a new report from People For the American Way.

The report, AMERICA’S PROGRESS AT RISK: RESTORING BALANCE TO THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, can be found here: http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/america-s-progress-risk-restoring-balance-dc-circuit-court-appeals

“The D.C. Circuit is the most important court most Americans have never heard of,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “The D.C. Circuit’s judges have the final word on scores of federal laws each year, from air pollution controls to financial regulations to workers’ rights. Republicans have long understood this, and have packed the court with far-right ideologues who threaten to hold back American progress for decades to come.  And they have so far blocked confirmation of judges who would bring any balance to this court." 

President Obama is the first president since Woodrow Wilson to fail to have a single nominee confirmed to the D.C. Circuit during his first full term in office, despite the fact that four of the eleven seats on the court are now vacant. His first nominee to the court, the indisputably qualified Caitlin Halligan, was twice blocked by Senate Republicans for reasons widely recognized as spurious.

As a result, the D.C. Circuit continues to be dominated by judges pushing a right-wing ideology long rejected by the American people. The right-wing majority of the D.C. Circuit has continuously sought to dismantle progressive efforts to defend consumers, protect public health, and ensure the rights of workers. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions highlighted in the report include:

  • Noel Canning v. NLRB:  In January, the D.C. Circuit invalidated three presidential appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, undermining the Board’s ability to protect the rights of workers and giving the green light to Senate Republicans who wish to decimate any federal agency by blocking appointees.
  • EME Homer City Generation v. EPA: In 2012, the D.C. Circuit sided with utility companies to strike down EPA air pollution regulations that would have prevented an estimated 34,000 premature deaths and saved $280 billion a year in healthcare costs.
  • Business Roundtable v. SEC: In 2011, the D.C. Circuit overturned an SEC rule requiring greater accountability from corporations to their shareholders in selecting board members. One observer noted that in doing so the judges – none of them securities experts – had “waded into a political fight under the guise of dispassionate scientific oversight.”
  • RJ Reynolds Tobacco v. FDA: Last year, the D.C. Circuit ruled that FDA regulations requiring cigarette manufacturers to place graphic, factually accurate warnings on their product violated tobacco companies’ First Amendment free speech rights.
  • Hein Hettinga v. USA: George W. Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown used a case about milk market regulation last year to issue a call to arms against eight decades of progressive reforms. Courts that have allowed the government to implement reasonable regulations of industry have, she said, put “property…at the mercy of pillagers.”

“President Obama has a chance in his second term to restore ideological balance to the D.C. Circuit,” added Marge Baker. “It is critically important that he do so. Otherwise, D.C. Circuit will continue to stand in the way of progressive reforms -- reforms chosen by American voters -- and threaten to roll back decades of hard-won protections for working people and consumers."
 

###

America's Progress at Risk: Restoring Balance to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Even in electoral defeat, the far right retains the power to undermine progressive laws and thwart the agenda that Americans elected President Obama to pursue. One measure of that power is the outsized influence far-right ideologues have on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Cuccinelli Removes Web Pages to Hide Record On Immigration

With Republicans in Washington looking to moderate the party’s rhetoric on immigration, Virginia Attorney General – and gubernatorial candidate – Ken Cuccinelli is attempting to airbrush his anti-immigration record by removing material from his website. Unfortunately for Cuccinelli, the Internet just doesn’t work that way.

A cached version of his site from February 25th highlights his right-wing record and views. It boasts of his votes against in-state tuition for undocumented students and his crackdowns on hiring undocumented workers. That page is now gone, as are pages opposing gun control and abortion. It seems Cuccinelli thinks he can sidestep his extreme record by simply removing it from his website, or as the Washington Post put it, "Mr. Cuccinelli hasn’t shifted his position; he’s just removed it from public view."

Of course, even the amazing vanishing web pages didn’t include some of Cuccinelli’s most extreme views on immigration, such as his support for Arizona’s SB 1070 and his comparison of immigration policy to pest control. Cuccinelli can play with his website all he likes, but he can’t hide from his extreme, far-right record.

Pat Robertson: Beware 'Scamsters in Religious Garb'

Following a news story on the 700 Club about the Profitable Sunrise investment scam, televangelist Pat Robertson told viewers to beware “scamsters in religious garb quoting the Bible, I mean run from them.”

Of course, if CBN viewers actually followed Robertson's advice, he'd be in deep trouble.

Watch:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious