Right Wing Round-Up - 10/9/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/9/14

  • James Dobson says that "the preservation of the family is the Cause for which I was born. I knew it when I was 20 years old."
  • James Robison warns people to vote properly: "Whatever political banner you may wave, you need the banner of the Lord and the principles of Almighty God or you are going nowhere but down. The way up is God. The way out is Divine Direction."
  • A bunch of anti-gay Religious Right activists are so anti-gay that they are urging other anti-gay Republicans to vote for a Democrat over a gay Republican.
  • Linda Harvey fumes over advances in gay rights: "Vicious attacks have been launched by the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others against brave, compassionate, truthful Christian brothers like Peter LaBarbera, Dr. Scott Lively, Dr. Michael Brown and organizations like American Family Association and Family Research Council. Isn’t it obvious, isn’t this revelation enough, that the poison 'fruit' of homosexual advocacy is ripening in today’s America, revealing lies and oppression, and it stinks to high heaven?"
  • NOM likewise fumes over the success of gay marriage: "This is not democracy: it is judicial tyranny ... [M]arriage is on the ropes, and our principles of government are taking a beating as well."
  • Finally, read all about the Palin family's drunken brawl.

Glenn Beck's Sanity Box: How Our Society Will Go From Gender-Inclusive Classrooms To Mass Genocide

Yesterday, The National Review reported on a document produced by a group called Gender Spectrum providing teachers with suggestions on how to create gender inclusive classrooms. Among the suggestions was that rather than separating the boys into one line and the girl into another, teachers could come up with gender-neutral ways of breaking up the class, such as separating by birthdays.

Another suggestion was for teachers to avoid using phrases like "boys and girls" and instead have the students come up with a class nickname and then use that nickname for calling the class together. The example the document provided was "purple penguins," so that the teacher could then, for example, call out for all the purple penguins to meet on the rug for reading time.

Predictably, Glenn Beck pretty much lost his mind on his radio show today over this, saying that he is going to start printing out these sorts of stories and sealing them up in a box that he can bury in the side of a mountain so that future generations can see just how deranged our society has become.

"Five thousand years from now," Beck ranted, "they will dig on the side of a mountain and they will find a big thing marked 'Glenn Beck's Sanity Box - what drove him insane is all in this box; open at your own peril.'"

Upon reading these stories, future generations will ask "what the hell were they thinking" and then they will find a message, Beck said, "probably scrawled in my own urine and poop" informing them that at least some of those living today realized the world had gone utterly insane, but nobody would listen to them.

Naturally, Beck then explained that all of this is rooted in a failure to acknowledge the existence of God, warning that when there is no Creator and society can decide its own rules, "this is what leads to mass genocide, every time!"

Anti-Gay Mega-Donor Sean Fieler Is Funding Mark Regnerus' New Think Tank

Last year, University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus — author of a widely panned study on same-sex parenting that is nonetheless frequently cited on the Religious Right — helped launch a new group called the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, which has since been publishing his research on topics including pre-marital sex, divorce, religion among college students and masturbation.

According to tax records filed this summer, the Austin Institute receives much of its funding from one donor: New York hedge fund honcho and social conservative mega-donor Sean Fieler.

The 2013 tax return for Fieler’s Chiaroscuro Foundation reports two grants to the Austin Institute, totaling $250,000. Although the public copy of Chiaroscuro’s tax return obscures the dates of its fiscal year, the organization’s 2010 return indicates that its tax year runs from January through December.

Meanwhile, the Austin Institute’s return reports that it took in just $205,000 in contributions between February and June 2013, indicating that a significant portion of its initial funding came from Fieler’s charity.

Fieler’s funding of the Austin Institute shouldn’t come as a surprise. To begin with, he is a trustee of the Witherspoon Institute, the Princeton-based think tank that kicked in $700,000 for Regnerus’ now infamous “New Family Structures” study. The study claimed to show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents suffer all sorts of harmful consequences like drug use and abuse, despite only actually studying two people raised by same-sex couples.

According to the Austin Chronicle, the new group was quickly dubbed “Witherspoon Institute South” — a name stemming from its staff’s plentiful ties to the Witherspoon Institute and the Religious Right.

The Austin Institute grants were among the biggest expenditures last year by Fielder’s Chiaroscuro Foundation, many of which went to groups fighting marriage equality and abortion rights. This year, recipients include Americans United for Life ($20,000), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ($260,000), the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), which fights pro-choice and LGBT rights initiatives at the U.N. ($20,000), the National Abstinence Education Foundation ($50,000) and the Susan B. Anthony List ($40,000). As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Fieler’s foundation also gave $50,000 last year to Morality in Media for its increasingly quixotic anti-porn campaign.

In 2012, the foundation gave $20,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, but seems to have snubbed the group in 2013.

The Chiaroscuro Foundation is just the beginning of Fieler’s influence: Last month, RH Reality Check delved in detail into Fieler’s political spending, including his funding of the American Principles Project and his hand in political races across the country.

While Regnerus’ research at the Austin Institute has so far made less of a splash than his faulty same-sex parenting study, he has continued to lend his voice to the effort to stop marriage equality, including testifying on behalf of a same-sex marriage ban in Michigan this year. (That move caused some of his UT colleagues to distance themselves from his work.)

The Austin Institute’s most noticeable contribution so far is a viral YouTube video applying a pop-economics veneer to the Religious Right’s favorite target, the sexual revolution. The video explains (in economic terms, of course) how contraception led to women turning against each other while men became video-game playing slobs — the only solution to which is for women to band together to withhold sex until marriage.

And the Austin Institute seems primed to provide more research to conveniently reinforce the Religious Right’s policy views — a solid investment for a donor like Fieler.

UPDATE: A reader points out that the Bradley Foundation, a conservative group that includes the Witherspoon Institute's Robert George on its board and that also helped to fund Regnerus' "New Family Structures" study, also reported a $100,000 grant to the Austin Institute last year.

Pat Robertson: Halloween Is A 'Festival For Demonic Spirits'

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson once again warned viewers against partaking in “demonic” Halloween revelry“Halloween is a festival for demonic spirits,” Robertson said in response to a viewer who wondered whether to let her children go to their aunt’s Halloween party. 

“The whole idea of trick-or-treating is the Druids would go to somebody’s house and ask for money and if they didn’t get money they’d kill one of their sheep, that was the sheep and it was serious stuff. All this business about goblins and jack-o’-lanterns all comes out of demonic rituals of the Druids and the people who lived in England at that particular time.”

Robertson suggested that churches instead “turn it into a Christian festival and that’s what we ought to do, we need to redeem these days, but that day was given over to Satanic things.”

Watch:

Kris Kobach Doesn't Like The New GAO Study Showing His Voter ID Law Decreased Turnout

Surprise! A new Government Accountability Office study shows that Kansas’ new voter ID requirement depressed turnout in the 2012 election, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is not happy about it.

Kobach was the driving force behind Kansas’ voter ID law, which he called the “Cadillac of voter security.” The law passed in 2011, and its photo ID requirement kicked in for the 2012 election — that’s the provision that the GAO found decreased turnout, especially among young people and African Americans.

But since then, a new provision in the law has taken effect, making it even harder to vote in Kansas. As of last month, tens of thousands of Kansans had had their voter registrations suspended because of failure to provide one of a narrow list of “proof of citizenship” documents required under this new, Kobach-backed provision.

The “proof of citizenship” fiasco has become a main issue in Kobach’s tough reelection fight, causing many moderate Republicans to break ranks and back his Democratic opponent Jean Schodorf.

So, unsurprisingly, Kobach is not thrilled with the GAO study showing that even the first step of his “Cadillac” plan is driving people from voting, telling the Wichita Eagle that the report from the nonpartisan agency is just “dead wrong.”

“I think the GAO just got it dead wrong,” Kobach told The Eagle Wednesday. “This year we have a very competitive U.S. Senate race and lots of get-out-the-vote efforts. It’s a huge factor in driving turnout when campaigns spend this kind of money.”

Kobach also said it would have been more accurate to compare Kansas’ turnout in 2012 to its turnout in 2000, the last time there were no U.S. Senate or statewide offices on the ballot. In 2000, voter turnout was 66.7 percent, and in 2012, it was 66.8 percent.

The report says voter turnout decreased in Kansas and Tennessee from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections to a greater extent than turnout decreased in selected comparison states – Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine. Tennessee’s secretary of state, Tre Hargett, also called the study flawed.

The GAO stood by its study, saying its “methodology was robust and valid.”

Rebecca Gambler, director of homeland security and justice issues for the GAO, said the agency selected Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine for comparison because they did not have any changes to their state voter ID requirements between 2008 and 2012.

“They didn’t have other contemporaneous changes. They had similar election cycles to Kansas and Tennessee,” Gambler said.

The GAO reported that its analysis “suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in comparison states were attributable to changes in the two states’ voter ID requirements.”

Barber: SCOTUS Is 'Tempting The Wrath Of God' With Gay Marriage Decision

Matt Barber and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continue to fume about the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand and have dedicated several recent episodes of their "Faith and Freedom" radio program to ranting about it, with Barber at one point warning that America will soon face divine wrath.

On an episode set to run on Tuesday, Barber warns that "homosexual conduct is demonstrably and explicitly, throughout the Old and New Testament, called sin. And when you have a sin-centered redefinition of marriage and the government puts its official stamp on sin, you have the government blessing sin, well, sin cannot be blessed, it cannot be sanctified."

By trying to do so, Barber said, America is "tempting the wrath of God":

Mat Staver: Third Party Needed To Stop Gay Marriage, Just Like With Slavery

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, who is still reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision this week to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand, is now lambasting his fellow Republicans for failing to defend the party’s anti-gay positions.

Staver told Greg Corombos of Radio America yesterday that a third party will be needed to take a strong stance against the legalization of same-sex marriage, just as the Republican Party emerged in the 1850s to oppose slavery as the Whigs were foundering due to divisions on the issue.

When Corombos asked why Republicans have delivered a muted response to the marriage decision, Staver didn’t hold back: “They’re cowards, and if Republicans don’t stand up for this, the party will become a non-issue and there will be a third party that will ultimately take its place. That’s what happened with the issue of slavery and there’s no party that’s immune from this situation.”

He said George W. Bush could have pushed through the Federal Marriage Amendment following the 2004 election but was too fixated on advocating for the privatization of Social Security.

Staver urged Republicans to ignore polls showing growing support for marriage equality: “Just because polls change, that doesn’t make the marriage issue change. You can’t change gravity because a number of people want to fly and get rid of gravity.”

He predicted that the tide will soon turn against gay rights advocates as “more people feel the impact of same-sex marriage, both directly within the family but also specifically with regards to religious liberty.”

Staver added that it is “absolute stupidity” to think that the fight over marriage equality is over: “That would be like saying with regards to Dred Scot, when the Supreme Court said, ‘Sorry Dred Scott, you’re black and blacks are inferior human beings, you don’t have rights of a citizen, therefore the debates over.’ That would be ridiculous then, it’s ridiculous now.”

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Intentionally Bringing In Ebola To Make America More Like Africa

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly weighed in on the unfounded theory gaining traction in the right-wing media that Central American young people are to blame for an outbreak of a childhood respiratory illness in the U.S.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly told WND, adding that “of all the things [Obama has] done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

She went on to imply that President Obama is intentionally allowing people infected with Ebola into the United States because he wants America to be “just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly – author of “Who Killed the American Family?” – said she agrees Obama is responsible for allowing diseases to enter the country.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly said. “And it’s Obama’s job to keep them out.

“Out of all the things he’s done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

Schlafly said the government should screen immigrants for disease before they enter the country, as was done at Ellis Island a hundred years ago.

“That was the purpose of Ellis Island – to have a waiting place where it was decided whether people were healthy enough or responsible enough to come into our country,” she said. “The idea that anybody can just walk in and carry this disease with them is just an outrage, and it is Obama’s fault because he’s responsible for doing it.”

When asked why the current administration hasn’t done more to prevent diseased illegal aliens or Ebola carriers from Africa from entering the country, Schlafly said Obama wants to make the U.S. more like the rest of the world.

“Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” Schlafly said. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Erik Rush Asks: Is Obama Trying 'To Facilitate An Ebola Outbreak In The United States?'

WorldNetDaily commentator Erik Rush insists in his column today that he is just asking the question: Does President Obama intend “to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?”

Rush writes that the president is not an “unluckly, incompetent or intellectually compromised” leader, as in fact “the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.”

According to Rush, Obama is an “incomprehensibly diabolical individual” who hopes to create an Islamic caliphate and allow members of terrorist groups to enter the United States. Following this train of thought, Rush insists that it is only reasonable to wonder if Obama is hoping to spread Ebola in the U.S.

I’ve said before (and I am by no means the only one) that it would be statistically impossible for an individual to be sufficiently unlucky, incompetent, or intellectually compromised that their policies would overwhelmingly result in disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, we’ve cultivated a population wherein there are individuals among us so mind-blowingly stupid that they believe travel restrictions imposed on Ebola-stricken nations would be racist. Thus, there are plenty of folks who still buy into the “Obama as the good-natured bungler” narrative – sort of a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone.

While I have breath, however, I will continue to affirm that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.

Obama used political correctness as a pretext for failing to control our southern border. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to overwhelm the system, thus allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists access to the United States.

Obama used humanitarianism and regional security as a pretext for arming “moderate” rebels in Syria. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to facilitate the rise of an Islamic caliphate that would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the United States.

Obama used economics and social justice as a pretext for comprehensive changes to America’s health-care system. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to massively increase Americans’ dependency on the government.

Obama used loyalty as a pretext for trading five jihadi generals for one deserter – illegally, I might add. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to provide terrorist groups with the invaluable experience these murderers could offer.

Obama uses citizenship as a pretext for failing to take decisive action against Americans fighting with ISIS in the Middle East upon their return. It is viewed as imprudent, but his intention is to enable terrorist groups within our borders.

Obama is even using the constitutional separation (of church and state) clause as a pretext for refusing to address Islamist ideology, despite his administration’s unconstitutional deportment toward Christians (in the form of the abortifacient and contraceptive mandates under Obamacare and the widespread disenfranchisement of Christians in the military).



Barack Obama used the denial of risk as a pretext for failing to restrict travel from Ebola-stricken African nations. This, too, was viewed as imprudent. Is his intention to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?

If the above questions paint the picture of an incomprehensibly diabolical individual, bear in mind that this individual and his contemporaries have despised everything America stands for their entire lives, and that their idols are among worst mass murderers the world has known. Then, consider their track record as indicated above.

Then, ask yourself why they wouldn’t use any and every means at their disposal to bring about the desired result.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious