Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 5:10 pm
That was fast.
Just moments after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the United Nations in a historic address that the United States that the United States is committed to protecting LGBT people overseas from persecution and discrimination, and will use foreign aid as an instrument to defend their rights, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber attacked Clinton and President Obama for having an “obsession with the radical homosexual activist agenda.” Clinton called out abuses such as violence against the LGBT community, including “corrective rape,” along with the criminalization and demonization of homosexuals.
But that was too much for Barber, who earlier this year joined Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver in blasting the Obama administration for withholding aid to Malawi because the country outlaws homosexuality. Barber told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow that the Obama administration is “trying to force nations to adopt America’s immoral positions on issues of sexuality” while supposedly ignoring “real human rights abuses”:
The announced policy, according to Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action, "displays the arrogance of the Obama administration."
It is "frankly offensive," says the attorney, that President Obama "feels compelled to export American culture's decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality."
Barber also notes that the administration is apparently ignoring the fact that foreign nations -- like the United States -- are sovereign countries. He adds that the U.S. is "using essentially blackmail and the purse strings" of the nation to force countries to change their moral principles.
"What about nations where Christians are driven out of the nation or executed?" he asks. "And this Obama administration, instead of focusing on real human rights abuses, is trying to force nations to adopt America's immoral positions on issues of sexuality."
Barber believes there is an "obsession with the radical homosexual activist agenda that seems to drive this Obama administration."
UPDATE: Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg also denounced the new policy to defend LGBT rights abroad, lashing out at the administration for “imposing an alien ideology on other countries”:
"It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution. If he did the same on other issues, his own liberal allies would undoubtedly accuse him of cultural imperialism. Threats to withhold foreign aid from poor countries unless they conform their laws to the views of Western radicals are unconscionable.
"The United Nations, like the United States, remains sharply divided on the issue of whether special rights should be granted on the basis of sexual conduct, sexual orientation or gender identity. No treaty or widely accepted international agreement has established homosexual conduct as a human right, yet the Obama administration's actions seem guided by this fiction.
"President Obama should increase efforts to defend human rights that are widely recognized, such as religious liberty, rather than appeasing his domestic allies by imposing an alien ideology on other countries."
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 4:40 pm
The release of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate in April hasn’t stopped Jerome Corsi, author of Where’s The Birth Certificate?, from pushing his fanciful case that President Obama was born outside of the United States, and yesterday he appeared in Crosstalk with Vic Eliason on Voice of Christian Youth America where the two complained that no one cares what they have to say anymore. Eliason lamented that people “call us just a bunch of crazies, radicals, birthers” and said that people like himself “get a label, an epithet that kind of raises a shadow over” their arguments. Corsi assured him that “Barack Obama’s nativity story and his life story” have all been “fabricated,” and claimed that the alleged “cover-up” is a “serious issue.”
Eliason: One of the things that frustrates me as I hear about these things Dr. Corsi is this, there’s enough evidence here—if this was a bank robbery the law would pounce on the perpetrators—but there’s enough evidence here to raise questions from A to Z and nobody seems to be or have the power or the will or whatever to get, I mean, why are people scurrying around it? For instance, if you mention this and by us putting it on the air, they’d call us just a bunch of crazies, radicals, birthers, that’s the term that they call them, birthers. They get a label, an epithet that kind of raises a shadow over anybody that raises a question.
…
Corsi: The entire story we’ve been presented with, Barack Obama’s nativity story and his life story, appear to be all fabricated. So we truly don’t know who this man is.
Eliason: That statement is rather shocking but I’ve seen it even coming from other countries and national leaders that have called Mr. Obama a mystery man that has come from somewhere, emerged quickly, qualifications ignored and basically placed. And there are many people that have asked the questions, could it be, as this morning on Fox News they were saying he was the bystander in the White House, that was the term that Fox was using, a bystander in the White House, standing by while everything else goes crazy, only stepping in at certain times when he should be in there, dealing with the issues instead of being out golfing or running for office or whatever he’s doing at this present time.
Corsi: I think another term that’s been used is usurper, in other words, instead of coming forward and presenting his credentials in an open fashion, saying, ‘do you want to see my passport records here they are, do you want to see the original birth certificate materials, here’s what’s in the vault in Hawaii.’ We still have even today, three years into the presidency, a cover-up going on, so we’re not allowed to see original documents pertaining to Barack Obama, and I think that’s a serious issue.
Submitted by Josh Glasstetter on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 3:53 pm
“Strict constructionism,” whatever that means, was a hot topic at Saturday’s GOP presidential forum on Fox News. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry took pains to show that they would be very strict about their constructionism. Channeling George W. Bush, they heartily endorsed the rulings of Roberts and Alito and spoke out against judges who supposedly “legislate from the bench.”
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli kicked things off by asking Perry, “What does the term ‘strict constructionist’ mean to you and would that be the standard for your nominees to the Supreme Court?”
Perry, somewhat giddy, replied that “Alito and a Roberts are the type of the jurists, a strict constructionist, not a legislator in a robe.” “You know, we have about four of each of those on the Supreme Court,” he continued.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt raised the possibility of multiple vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next presidential term, and asked Romney what it means to him to appoint a “strict constructionist.” Romney said that he looks “at the opinions of the last several years by justices like Roberts and Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and I say, these people are strict constructionists.”
Despite all the talk about “strict constructionists,” it was hard to know from their words what they actually meant by it. Mike Huckabee, the host, acknowledged as much when he asked Perry, “We’ve all talked about ‘strict constructionists.’ For the layman out there, just help them understand exactly what that means.”
Perry sputtered for a couple seconds, then fumbled with his lapel, knocking his mic loose, and pulled out a pocket constitution. Holding it out, upside down no less, Perry defined the term: “It’s right there… That’s the Constitution. Read it. Exactly what it says. That’s what we’re talking about. Don’t read anything into it. Don’t add to it.” Well, that explains it!
There’s actually a good reason for all the vague language around “strict constructionism.” When you look at the rulings of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, “strict constructionism” has a very different meaning – being strict with everyday Americans while constructing new rights and privileges for powerful business interests, such as the right for corporations to be “people” and spend unlimited sums to influence elections.
It’s little wonder that Romney and Perry, like Bush, are sticking to vague buzzwords and catchphrases. Here are some clips of the candidates from Saturday alongside clips of Bush from 2004 and 2008:
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 3:05 pm
Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to discuss his recent column where he warned that the so-called War on Christmas will be even more traumatic this year as the “Christmas-phobic ACLU tacks up portraits of Grandfather Frost in back offices to inspire them during that darned holiday season that Dare Not Tell Its Name.” Mefferd and Knight floated a legal strategy to challenge what Knight called in his column “the secular virus,” a lawsuit on the grounds that the government violated the First Amendment by establishing atheism as the state’s official religion.
Mefferd: As we were talking about atheism being the de facto official religion with all of this, do you know if there’ve been any lawsuits dealing with the establishment of religion with atheism? This issue of saying, hey by not allowing this, by default the state really seems to be embracing atheism?
Knight: No but that sounds like a good lawsuit to me. I think Christians and others who believe in religious freedom in this country ought to be more aggressive, and that kind of strategy Janet, that’s a great idea.
It appears that Mefferd and Knight confuse government neutrality towards religion, a principal reason for religious freedom in America, with an official endorsement of atheism, which is not a religion.
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 1:40 pm
The unexpectedly staggering defeat of the personhood amendment in Mississippi last month has not slowed down Personhood USA’s campaign to put stringent anti-choice laws on the ballot in states across the country. In fact, the group wants to put personhood laws back on the ballot in Colorado, where it was defeated twice, and even make a second attempt in Mississippi.
Personhood Mississippi head and Christian separatist Les Riley and Personhood USA’s Jennifer Mason told the Washington Times that activists are committed to passing the amendment in Mississippi:
“I can tell you that we are going to press forward. … We’ve got plans to continue a massive grass-roots campaign,” as well as work with the legislature, said Les Riley, leader of Personhood Mississippi.
“We realize we are changing a culture, and we can’t expect to change the culture with one election. That’s why we are willing to do this as many times as it takes,” said Jennifer Mason, spokeswoman for Personhood USA, which supports coast-to-coast measures seeking to establish human rights at conception.
…
“We think that by including a little more information to prohibit our opposition from using these scare tactics will benefit us, while easing voters’ minds,” said Mrs. Mason, who is married to Personhood USA President Keith Mason.
Another state Personhood USA is targeting is Florida, where the state affiliate plans to gather signatures in support of a new Florida ProLife Personhood Amendment:
Have you heard the news? Personhood FL has launched a new prolife petition called the Florida ProLife Personhood Amendment. Personhood FL will collect petition signatures from registered Florida voters January 2012 – December 2013. We need your help to contact every church, every pastor in your county!
Because of a bill passed by the FL Legislature this year that changed the shelf life of the petition signatures from 4 years to 2 years, we are launching a new two year petitioning effort beginning January 2012. We have taken this opportunity to launch the new Florida ProLife Personhood Amendment based on language endorsed by Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The new petition language has been designed by a think tank of prolife personhood attorneys and satisfies 11 conditions needed to unite pro-life ministries. Adapting this language enables all states to come into unity anticipating and facilitating a federal prolife personhood amendment.
The premise of the book, which features interviews with the likes of Tony Perkins and James Dobson, is that time and again the Religious Right has supported the Republican Party only to be repeatedly betrayed and now is the time for the movement to take a stand:
We Won’t Get Fooled Again is an in-depth expose of the so-called Religious Right, the most reviled and feared voting bloc in the past 30 years of American politics. However, despite all of the attacks and the acclaim, there is little evidence the movement actually has accomplished any of its objectives.
The book even has its own trailer which offers up a series of ways in which the Religious Right has supposedly been betrayed by the Republicans and conservative movement, such as Ann Coulter joining the board of GOProud, former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman coming out as gay, and even George W. Bush saying that he was not a Biblical literalist.
But most of the ad focuses on Mitt Romney, calling him "the father of healthcare mandates, taxpayer-funded abortions, and so-called homosexual marriage":
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 12/6/2011 12:30 pm
With Newt Gingrich sharply rising in the polls, more and more Religious Right activists are saying that his personal background of serial adultery and multiple divorces will not be a deal breaker for social conservative voters. Bob Vander Plaats cited Gingrich’s “life transformation” and “Christian-historical worldview,” and Tony Perkins told Lou Dobbs that Gingrich is still viewed as more conservative and trustworthy than Mitt Romney, even though he is Romney’s “opposite” when it comes to their personal lives. “No one knows the story of redemption better than Christian evangelicals,” Perkins said.
Back in May, Michael Youssef used the analogy of King David to argue that Gingrich’s “personal struggles and successes will aid him in being not only a seasoned candidate but possibly one of the finest presidents since Ronald Reagan.” In 2 Samuel, King David had an affair with and impregnated Bathsheba, whose husband David later had killed by putting him on the frontlines of battle. Yesterday, conservative columnist Dennis Prager, without naming the presidential candidate, also used the King David analogy to make the case that Religious Right voters can still rally behind a politician with a sordid past:
But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person? For many Americans, the answer is: "Pretty much all we need to know." This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: "If he can't keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?"
I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king – and even have the Messiah descend from him – despite a particularly ugly form of adultery (sending Bathsheba's husband into battle where he assuredly would be killed).
And while on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife will likely betray his country: Who would you prefer for president? A pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the left who had always been faithful to his wife?
…
Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates' sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates – for virtually any public office – on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?
Bill Donohue is not happy that Madonna will be the halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl and using an extremely unflattering photo of the singer in his press release.
David Barton is pushing something called "Citizenship Sundays" where churches hold voter registration drives.
Bryan Fischer says that Newt Gingrich may actually be "the least conservative candidate in the GOP race, less conservative even than Romney."
After "suspending" his campaign over the weekend, Herman Cain is reportedly going to be endorsing Gingrich.
Finally, Rick Perry tries to win over Cain supporters with an open letter that says "you don’t have to go to church every Sunday to know something is wrong in America where gays can openly serve in the military but our children can’t pray in school."
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Monday, 12/5/2011 5:30 pm
In his latest column, Larry Klayman predicted that people will increasingly stock up on firearms because President Obama’s “dishonest, non-responsive and incompetent government” is “invading our individual and family rights and taking away our liberties,” and are just waiting “for the revolution to come.” The founder of Judicial Watch went on to argue that Americans see “no one on the horizon who can lead this nation back from Armageddon” and worries they will eventually turn to violence: “Let us pray that violent revolt will not break out before all other options are exhausted, but our Founding Fathers, faced with a similar dilemma, were forced to eventually choose this path by risking, and in many cases sacrificing, their fortunes and lives”:
It is obvious to anyone other than an anti-gun public-interest group like the Brady Center — which wants to claim credit for reducing ownership in firearms to generate more donor contributions — that the American people, true to the intent of the Founding Fathers as embodied in the Second Amendment, are largely stocking up on guns during this time of economic and international crisis and peril to protect themselves from the evils of a dishonest, non-responsive and incompetent government that has brought the nation and the rest of the Western world to the brink of total collapse. This so-called government — as seen with Obamacare, the threat of increased taxes and other forms of fiscal confiscation and violation of property and privacy rights, to name just a few "atrocities" — is busy invading our individual and family rights and taking away our liberties. And, all the while the so-called opposition political party, the Republican "leaders," sit by and play patty cake, feather their own nest and simply watch as the vision of our Founding Fathers is eroded and destroyed by Obama and the rest of the socialist establishment hacks, particularly in Washington, D.C., and the media.
It is evident that the people have near lost total hope and now are arming themselves to the hilt for the next revolution. And why have they lost near total hope at this time? Simply put, because they see no one on the horizon who can lead this nation back from Armageddon.
...
And, even were one of the Republican dwarfs to miraculously win the presidency, there is little to no hope of great, much less responsive, political leadership on the horizon. The people see this and are busy arming themselves, in self-defense, for the revolution to come.
Let us pray that violent revolt will not break out before all other options are exhausted, but our Founding Fathers, faced with a similar dilemma, were forced to eventually choose this path by risking, and in many cases sacrificing, their fortunes and lives.
Is the past a prologue? With no functioning form of representative government likely to be installed in 2012, it well may be!
