All

Steve Deace Claims End Of Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws Led To 'Fascism'

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace writes in the Washington Times today that gay rights advocates are trying to instill a 1984-style “fascism,” and blames this development on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

“Every fascist movement in human history would be proud” of the gay rights movement, he writes, warning that the movement poses a greater threat to America than “jihadists” and is forcing Christians “debate our very existence” in the US.

After being desensitized to homosexuality by popular culture for the past two decades, the American people were promised by the Left that allowing the sexual revolution to reach its climax wouldn’t change anything. Now that our brave, new world of anything goes has arrived, the American people are beginning to realize this actually threatens to change everything.

Free speech, your own conscience, and religious freedom — rights as old as our republic itself — are now threatened more than ever before. Those God-given rights aren’t being threatened by jihadists or the Redcoats. They’re being threatened by a new fascism that calls itself “tolerance.”



Those who pleaded for “tolerance” and demanded “equality” only intended to do so until they acquired supremacy. Then, when they had the advantage, they would make sure their opponents understood that it’s not any fun once the rabbit has the gun. This reconstruction of previously agreed upon terminology and values is always the first step towards totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out in “Animal Farm” and “1984.”

A brief history lesson for those wondering how “tolerance” turned into fascism.

When sodomy laws were nullified by controversial Supreme Court precedents like 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us this was only about consenting adults’ private behavior, and this wouldn’t lead to a fight over marriage. But that’s exactly what it did.

While we were winning the fight to preserve marriage in 31 of the 35 states it was contested, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us that redefining marriage and granting new rights based on behavior wouldn’t cost anybody their previously acknowledged God-given rights.

But that’s exactly what it’s doing, as it was intended to do. Statists are cheering on the fascism because their ultimate goal has always been to silence the church in America, for it’s the church that preaches the sovereignty of God and not government.



Christians now find ourselves in the position of having to debate our very existence in a country that wouldn’t have existed without our Christian forefathers, who came here for religious freedom in the first place. Can we hold jobs and still believe the Bible and church teachings? Can we own businesses? Will we be blacklisted from certain industries? Will they try to stop us from passing these teachings down to our children at home, since they’re already indoctrinating our kids against us in the schools as it is? And so on, and so forth.



The new tolerance has become the new fascism. How fabulous.

WND: Obama Paving The Way For A New Holocaust

George Mason University professor Walter Williams suggests in a WorldNetDaily column today that President Obama may soon introduce a new holocaust.

In his column “Concentration of Power: Hitler, Mao, Obama,” Williams cites the IRS and Affordable Care Act as evidence that Obama is growing the size of government in order to bring about mass killings.

“Engineering Evil” is a documentary recently shown on the Military History channel. It’s a story of Nazi Germany’s murder campaign before and during World War II. According to some estimates, 16 million Jews and other people died at the hands of Nazis.

Though the Holocaust ranks high among the great human tragedies, most people never consider the most important question: How did Adolf Hitler and the Nazis gain the power they needed to commit such horror? Focusing solely on the evil of the Holocaust won’t get us very far toward the goal of the Jewish slogan “Never Again.”



We might ask why the 20th century was so barbaric. Surely, there were barbarians during earlier ages. Part of the answer is that during earlier times, there wasn’t the kind of concentration of power that emerged during the 20th century. Had Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Hitler been around in earlier times, they could not have engineered the slaughter of tens of millions of people. They wouldn’t have had the authority. There was considerable dispersion of jealously guarded political power in the forms of heads of provincial governments and principalities and nobility and church leaders whose political power within their spheres was often just as strong as the monarch’s.

Professor Rummel explained in the very first sentence of “Death by Government” that “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely. … The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects.” That’s the long, tragic, ugly story of government: the elite’s use of government to dupe and forcibly impose its will on the masses. The masses are always duped by well-intentioned phrases. After all, what German could have been against “A Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich”? It’s not just Germans who have fallen prey to well-intentioned phrases. After all, who can be against the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”?

We Americans ought to keep the fact in mind that Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have had more success in their reign of terror if they had the kind of control and information about their citizens that agencies such as the NSA, the IRS and the ATF have about us. You might ask, “What are you saying, Williams?” Just put it this way: No German who died before 1930 would have believed the Holocaust possible.

Another WorldNetDaily commentator, Barry Farber, also claimed today that Democrats are trying to restore Nazi Germany through voter fraud.

“They may represent only a small percentage of Democrats, but that’s all you need for massive rape of the results and reversal of the legitimate public will,” he writes, adding that fears of “election theft” by Democrats “made me feel like a Jew in Warsaw as the triumphant Nazis were beginning to implement the ‘Final Solution’ early in World War II.”

Farber goes on to warn that “one of the most common areas of vote fraud is the Northern resident with a Florida home who votes in both states. I say, if convicted, you lose your Florida house.” In that case, Ann Coulter better watch out.

There’s no such thing as a little bit of murder, but there is such a thing as a little bit of treason. Vote fraud sabotages the mechanics of democracy. This is a serious crime. But almost nobody takes it seriously enough. I call for war!

Kevin “Coach” Collins, former New York Police Department detective, puts out a site – coachisright.com – that adds a lot of color and muscle to the Web.



“You’re assuming a fair and honest election,” (paraphrasing) Coach tells us. “Those who are doing such a brilliant job leading America into a far-left asphalt quagmire have no intention of sitting back and losing the Senate fairly and squarely and then congratulating the Republicans and offering to ‘come together’ for a better America. You can be sure,” Coach’s message continues, they’ll steal, cheat and lie with vicious abandon. We who are on the other side are the ones who will look at each other with horror at around 20 minutes to 11 on Election Night, debating which agency is responsible for setting things right, which bureau will step in and stop this travesty and which publication do we turn to to give the world a “piece of our mind.”

Coach made me feel like a Jew in Warsaw as the triumphant Nazis were beginning to implement the “Final Solution” early in World War II. “Roosevelt will never allow this!” those Jews reassured each other. “The pope will never allow this. The League of Nations will never allow this.” Tell me again who it is you expect to come galloping in to reverse the outcome of a stolen election?

Are all Democrats thieves and cheaters? Is that a valid summation of the American Democrat? Of course not. That would be an ignorant allegation. Let me tell you what’s not so ignorant. They may represent only a small percentage of Democrats, but that’s all you need for massive rape of the results and reversal of the legitimate public will. We on the other side are vacuous, insipid and myopic. Get ready to get swallowed.

I’m not saying I do a good job. All I’m saying is, my job is keeping up with things like Republican plans to thwart election theft. And I’ve heard nothing, read nothing and know nothing about any meaningful Republican response.

There are more Republican governors than there are Democrats. If I were a Republican governor, I’d pick the half-dozen angriest and smartest activists in my party to look for the holes and vulnerabilities in our voting defenses and plug them up immediately. Don’t states still have legislatures? Can we ramrod through laws providing for five-year prison terms for those convicted of vote fraud? One of the most common areas of vote fraud is the Northern resident with a Florida home who votes in both states. I say, if convicted, you lose your Florida house!

Once Again David Barton Claims That The Constitution 'Came Right Out Of The Bible'

As we noted yesterday, we make an effort to watch every presentation that David Barton delivers because we just never know when he is going to drop in some new pseudo-historical claim that five minutes of research reveals to be an absurd misrepresentation of the truth. Last month, Barton spoke at Victory Christian Center in Austin, Texas where he did just that yet again.

Near the end of his presentation, Barton made his standard claim that the Founding Fathers knew that the Bible applied to every aspect of life, which is why they directly quoted and cited the Bible countless times when drafting the Constitution, asserting that both Alexander Hamilton and John Adams explicitly cited Luke 11:20 as the reason why the United States has a written Constitution.

Barton then repeated his claim that the idea for the separation of powers came out of the book of Jeremiah, but also added a new one, asserting that a passage from 1 Samuel is "the reason we have circuit courts and courts of appeals."

"It came right out of the Bible," he said:

As usual, Barton provides no documentation during his presentation so it is almost impossible to even try to track down the sources he is using to make these claims unless you have a copy of his "The Founder's Bible." Fortunately, we have a copy of his book, so we were able to take a look at his sources and, predictably, they do not support Barton's claims at all.

His assertion that both Hamilton and Adams cited Luke 11:20 as the reason that the United States has a written Constitution rests entirely upon the fact that they both used some version of the phrase "finger of God" when talking about the Constitution:

“For my part, I sincerely esteem it a system which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” (Alexander Hamilton)

"It is impossible to any man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." (John Adams)

Luke 11 says:

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. 23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

How Barton concludes that the United States has a written Constitution because of one phrase in the book of Luke about casting out demons and which has nothing to do with writing or constitutions or government whatsoever is anybody's guess.

Barton also claims that America has circuit and appellate courts because of this passage from 1 Samuel:

15 Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. 16 And he went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. And he judged Israel in all these places. 17 Then he would return to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he judged Israel. And he built there an altar to the Lord.

For some reason, Barton attributes the idea of such courts to James Kent, a Founding-era attorney and scholar who was practicing law in New York at the time that the Constitution was being written and literally played no role in its drafting or construction, as far as we have been able to determine.

Barton's claims are nonsense and his scholarship is laughable, but he will continue to spread his misinformation all over this nation to gullible audiences of conservative Christians who are so eager to embrace Barton's message and worldview that they can't be bothered to hold him accountable for his relentless dishonesty.

Scott Lively: 'Science Says' Gays 'Using Parts Of The Body In Ways They're Not Supposed To Be Used'

Anti-gay crusader and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively was a guest on the The Alan Colmes Show yesterday, where he attempted to explain why “homosexuality is a behavioral disorder on par with alcoholism or eating disorders.”

Lively told Colmes that “homosexual conduct is inherently wrong and dangerous and harmful” because “it’s using parts of the body in ways they’re not supposed to be used.”

When Colmes asked him “who says” that LGBT people use their bodies “in ways they’re not supposed to,” Lively replied, “Well, science says, for one thing.”

When Colmes asked him for scientific evidence of this, Lively of course couldn’t name any, but said that scientific studies aren’t even necessary because his point is “self-evident” and “the best arguments are arguments from simple logic, and when you get off into scientific studies then you’re off in the weeds.”


Lively: I believe that homosexuality is a behavioral disorder on par with alcoholism or eating disorders, things that people suffer with. It isn’t just a moral weakness. It’s something that people suffer with.

Colmes: How do you account for the fact that there are many gays who are happily gay, they’re not suffering because of it, they’re happily living their lives, some of them with partners. Alcoholism causes definite problems, physical problems.

Lively: Hey, there’s a lot of happy alcoholics.

Colmes: Well, but I don’t know how you compare a decision that somebody makes – I’m not calling being gay a decision, but a decision to be married to someone of the same gender, a decision to have sex with someone of the same gender – how do you call that analogous to alcoholism, when someone could be very not negatively affected by the results of those actions?

Lively: Well, I disagree that they can be ‘not negatively affected.’ I think homosexual conduct is inherently wrong and dangerous and harmful.

Colmes: Why? Why?

Lively: Why? Because it’s engaging in, it’s using parts of the body in ways they’re not supposed to be used.

Colmes: Says who?

Lively: Frankly, my model that I follow and that I advocate is that all sex belongs inside of authentic marriage, between a man and a woman.

Colmes: Who says that the human body should not be done in a way, or used in a way that gays use the human body, who says that?

Lively: Well, science says, for one thing.

Colmes: What scientists are coming out and saying that gays shouldn’t do that?

Lively: Well, not very many these days, because if anyone dares to go against the gays, they get bashed.

Colmes: But where in science has there ever been some scientific theory analogous to global warming, for example, that gays should not do things with their body.

Lively: Alan, it’s self-evident. It’s self-evident that anal…

Colmes: Wait a minute, you’re saying science, you didn’t say it was self-evident. Where’s the science in this?

Lively: Well, if you want to go down that path, I suppose we can go dig up studies and all that, but we don’t need to do that because it’s self-evident

Colmes: Because you can’t back up what you said if you don’t do that.

Lively: I believe that the best arguments are the arguments from simple logic, and when you get off into scientific studies, then you’re off in the weeds.

Colmes: But you’re the one who brought up science, Dr. Lively, you’re the one who brought that up.

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/8/14

Right Wing Leftovers - 4/8/14

  • Craig James allegedly lost his last job for being anti-gay so, of course, he has now been hired by the Family Research Council.
  • Anti-immigration activists are not reacting well to Jeb Bush's statement that those who enter this country illegally do so as an "act of love."
  • Robert Knight does not support the push for marriage equality: "It’s one thing to have the idea that a cow is now a horse. It’s another to use the power of the law to impose this delusion on everybody else. Same-sex 'marriage' is a direct attack on freedom of conscience for millions of people."
  • Liberty University dismisses concerns that it has hired a gay choreographer for an upcoming production of Mary Poppins.
  • Finally, James Dobson has a long list of ways that America is collapsing, including "in early March, Lena Dunham, the creator and star of the cable sitcom, Girls, appeared totally nude in a two minute skit on Saturday Night Live. She was naked as a jaybird.  Dunham was accompanied by her co-star, Taran Killam, who was wearing nothing but a scanty leaf.  Not only was the skit obscene; it mocked the biblical account of Creation and the Creator. Was there any outrage to the response? None that I heard about."

Ben Stein: End Poverty By Abolishing Church-State Separation

In an American Spectator column last week, conservative pundit Ben Stein argued that Americans living in poverty aren’t really poor because “they almost always have indoor plumbing,” and in any case they just “envy” the wealthy and are victims of their own “self-sabotage.”

He adds that federal policies can’t address poverty, and that instead what’s needed is an end to the separation of church and state: “What will make the genuinely poor stop sabotaging themselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we let God back into the public forum it would help. I have seen spiritual solutions work miracles.”

So, I just don’t see the problem in there being so many billionaires except for bare envy — an extremely basic emotion. It is an emotion that the politicians and academics and race haters have been able to stir up for a long, long time. It leads to jobs for Democrats but not much else.

...

In olden times, poverty was the common human condition. In the USA, as recently as the Great Depression, poverty was commonplace. FDR might have exaggerated when he described one-third of the nation as “ill housed, ill fed and ill clad...” But surely he was not far off.

Now, real poverty, where Americans lack cars or air conditioning (imagine that we now consider it poverty to lack something that was the ne plus ultra of luxury in my youth!) or solid food is extremely rare. Yes, the government designates many tens of millions as poor, but they almost always have indoor plumbing (which my mother did not have in her small town in the Catskills) and they are super nourished as opposed to mal-nourished. They get food stamps. They get free medical care. They get vouchers for many of the needs of life.

This is not to deny their sorrow and I am sad for them. But why are they poor? Senator Elizabeth Warren, a genuine moron, not a fake one, says it’s because of “corporations.”

No, federal policy does not generally cause long-term unemployment and poverty. In general. Obviously, there are exceptions.

My humble observation is that most long-term poverty is caused by self-sabotage by individuals. Drug use. Drunkenness. Having children without a family structure. Gambling. Poor work habits. Disastrously unfortunate appearance. Above all, and counted in the preceding list, psychological problems (very much including basic laziness) cause people to be unemployed, have poor or no work habits, and enter and stay in poverty.

Impoverished people have personal problems. They may have had terrible childhoods. They may have been the victims of abuse. They are often the victims of their own abuse of drugs and alcohol. But they are not the victims of corporations or of the Federal Reserve. Their sad backgrounds lead them into self-destruction.

Is there any public policy that can help them? We just don’t know so far. But whipping up hate against the successful simply cannot do it. There is no connecting mechanism between envy and greater productivity. Quite the opposite. Envy legitimizes class hatred and idleness (see “higher education — 2014”) and produces nothing.

What will make the genuinely poor stop sabotaging themselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we let God back into the public forum it would help. I have seen spiritual solutions work miracles.
 

Todd Starnes Warns Gay Rights Will Lead To 'Cultural Armageddon'

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes is outraged that TV shows these days include “families with two mommies or two daddies or a mommy who identifies as a daddy,” arguing in a Charisma column today that the gay community is largely responsible for the rise of divorce and single parent households.

Starnes interviewed Southern Baptist megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, who told him that marriage equality for same-sex couples “is having devastating sociological effects” because “when you counter something, you cheapen its value.”

“The traditional nuclear family is on the verge of disaster,” Starnes writes. “And once the nuclear family explodes, the United States should brace for a cultural Armageddon.”

I grew up in a time when father still knew best—when Mr. Cunningham was dispensing words of wisdom to Fonzie, when Andy took Opie fishing and when Cliff Huxtable declared that he brought his son into the world and he could take him out. It was a time when Hollywood reinforced the values of the traditional American family. Television shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie and The Brady Bunch presented portraits of strong families where parents ruled the roost and children knew their place.

Those days are long gone. Nowadays, children know best and dads are portrayed as dithering dolts. Instead of a mom and dad and two kids, the cul-de-sac includes families with two mommies or two daddies or a mommy who identifies as a daddy—and they’ve been saddled with gender-neutral offspring.



Critics might argue that the nation’s divorce rate is actually declining. But [Robert] Jeffress believes that’s evidence of a much greater problem.

“Fewer and fewer people are getting married, so fewer people are getting divorced,” he says. “The overall health of the American family is in critical condition.”

Jeffress believes the legalization of same-sex marriage has “cheapened” traditional marriage.

“When you counter something, you cheapen its value,” he says. “When you say marriage is whatever you want it to be, people begin wondering—why bother getting married anyway? This counterfeit of marriage is having devastating sociological effects. More kids are being raised in one-parent homes. You simply cannot break God’s most basic moral law without serious ramifications.”

What Can We Do?

The solution is simultaneously simple yet challenging. Simple in that we must return to God’s pattern for the family. God is the one who created the family. Before the church, He created the family—the fundamental unit of community.

Yet re-establishing that unit as God intended it within our culture is easier said than done, obviously, because of the fervent opposition to biblical values.

The warning signs are all around us. The traditional nuclear family is on the verge of disaster. And once the nuclear family explodes, the United States should brace for a cultural Armageddon.

Can we prevent such a catastrophe by returning to God’s design for the family? Like it or not, answering that question begins with the church.

World Congress Of Families Spokesman Defends Russian American Adoption Ban

In an interview with WorldNetDaily this weekend, World Congress of Families communications director Don Feder defended the author of Russia’s “gay propaganda” ban, also a key proponent of the ban on American adoptions, and claimed that she had been “punished” with sanctions because the Obama administration is “controlled by the gay lobby.”

Yelena Mizulina, head of the Duma’s committee on families and an organizer of the World Congress of Families’ upcoming Moscow conference, was among the Russian officials hit with economic sanctions after the seizure of Crimea. Along with her role promoting the propaganda ban and a crackdown on adoptions to countries that allow marriage equality, Mizulina helped push the 2012 ban on Russian adoptions to the U.S.

Feder told WorldNetDaily that Mizulina was “absolutely right” in her push to ban American adoptions because children could end up adopted by same-sex couples. “The Russians are very traditional people,” he added. “They have a strong religious orientation. They haven’t got caught up in the whole politically correct thing that has captured so many people in this country.”

“They don’t want to see Russian children placed with homosexuals,” he said. “Frankly, I don’t blame them.”

Feder claimed that the Obama administration used the Crimea crisis as a “convenient excuse” for “payback” against Mizulina.

“This administration is clearly controlled by the gay lobby,” he said. “Whatever organized homosexuals want, the administration gives them.”

He added that he was appalled by the Obama administration’s commitment to defending LGBT people around the world from violence and persecution: “You have to shake your head in wonder. Promoting gay rights is now a major US foreign policy initiative!”

Herman Cain's Website Upset That 'Vagina Woman' Running For Michigan Lt. Gov

Dan Calabrese, the editor-in-chief of Herman Cain’s Best of Cain website, is appalled that Michigan Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Mark Schauer has picked “Vagina Woman” Lisa Brown to be his running mate.

In 2012, Republicans in the Michigan House barred Brown, then a state representative, from speaking on the House floor after she used the word “vagina” in a speech against an anti-choice bill.

In a column titled “Democrats pick The Vagina Woman for Michigan's Lt. Governor” (url: “democrats-nominate-the-vagina”), Calabrese writes that Brown and Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis are “highly un-accomplished” and that their “main claim to fame is having talked publicly about their own sexual organs.”

“[I]t's worth taking a look when a candidate chooses a running mate with nothing much to recommend her except the fact that she once angrily mentioned one of her own body parts during a legislative session,” Calabrese adds, also objecting to the fact that Brown, who is now a county clerk, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples this month in the days before a marriage equality ruling was stayed.

It is not normally worth much news coverage when a candidate picks a running mate, although it usually gets a fair amount because political junkies tend to be obsessed with such minutia. But it's worth taking a look when a candidate chooses a running mate with nothing much to recommend her except the fact that she once angrily mentioned one of her own body parts during a legislative session, and that brings us to Mark Schauer, Michigan's presumptive Democrat nominee for governor, and his new running mate, Lisa Brown[.]

...

But it's the same thing they did in Texas, where the highly un-accomplished Wendy Davis is being touted for governor because she got a lot of media attention for staging a talk-a-thon in protest of restrictions on abortion. That's not working out too well, as Davis is way behind in the polls and her campaign has been beset by revelations about her supposedly inspirational life story. But that's what you get when you choose a candidate based on personal media narrative - especially one as flimsly as this - rather than actual qualifications.

Mark Schauer is no great prize either. He served one term in Congress before being turned out in the 2010 Red Wave election, but he was there long enough to vote for Obama's massive "stimulus" boondoggle and, of course, ObamaCare. He now spends his time engaging in every conventional Democrat pander of the moment, including demands that the minimum wage be raised and lots of blather about the "middle class" and so forth. And now he's proving that he knows the current Democrat playbooks very well, which is why he has selected the latest so-called victim of the "war on women" on the apparent belief that voters want to put the fortunes of their states in the hands of people whose main claim to fame is having talked publicly about their own sexual organs.