Right Wing Leftovers

  • Right-wing groups have benefited the most from the Citizens United ruling, what a surprise!
  • Janet Porter is organizing a rally in Columbus outside the Statehouse for her ‘Heartbeat Bill.’

Harvey: HIV/AIDS Infections Prove Schools Shouldn't Teach Sex Education

Mission America’s Linda Harvey says that comprehensive sex education is a means “to push homosexuality at school” and should be eliminated in order to fight HIV/AIDS. Harvey, who believes that the media use “demonic manipulation” to make children gay and that homosexuality is the cause of the country’s economic problems, writes that schools need to get rid of programs that teach safe-sex if they want to prevent the spread of the disease:

Why again are we promoting "gay" behavior to kids?


Way too many of these cases occur among younger-aged men, those 24 and under. This trend has been rising in recent years, which is one more reason not to push homosexuality at school, or in any way to imply these practices can be done “safely.”

This is the statistical face of deviance, out-of-control lust, and desperation. Most of the campaigns in this country to prevent HIV/AIDS do not take a strong stand against these unnecessary behaviors, but instead, talk around them and try to teach people to manage their misbehavior better. The numbers tell the story: it's not working.

What is that old definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We are throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in HIV prevention that ignores the elephant in the room, or maybe throws him an occasional peanut.

If your son or daughter is learning standard sex education at school, chances are excellent that he or she has absorbed this idea: that HIV is “everyone’s disease” and that just about anyone can get it. It’s simply not true. If you wait until marriage for sex— the traditional, authentic kind with one man and one woman— and remain faithful in marriage, your chances for HIV in your lifetime will be virtually zero. It's the specific high risk practices popular among homosexuals, hook-up heterosexuals, and drug users, that put them at high risk. They simply don't need to happen, for many reasons. This is not that tough to figure out.

We need to be telling the truth to our young people, within the public health community and in our schools.

National Day Of Prayer Speaker Declares "Homosexual Agenda" The "Greatest Threat To America"

Radio talk show host and Religious Right activist Penna Dexter was the keynote speaker at the National Day of Prayer event yesterday in Rapid City, South Dakota. Dexter, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, last year blamed a gay California youth who was murdered by another student for his own death. According to the Rapid City Journal, Dexter lamented that while Osama bin Laden is dead, the “the advancing homosexual agenda” continues to flourish:

A smaller than expected crowd of about 350 people, including at least two out of four mayoral candidates, turned out for Rapid City's National Day of Prayer event Thursday at Rushmore Plaza Civic Center to hear Christian political commentator Penna Dexter encourage Americans to offer "fervent prayer" for a government she believes is in trouble.

"Despite the sense of satisfaction in our country now because our guys just got a really bad guy, there's still a feeling that the ship of state is sinking," Dexter said, referring to the recent killing of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. military.

The Texas radio personality credited the Obama administration with defending the observance of the first Thursday in May as an annual National Day of Prayer. Dexter then moved on to what she called social, financial and moral problems with the current government, including abortion rights, the homosexual rights agenda and the growth of government entitlement programs.

"It's not politically correct to say so, but the greatest threat to America ... today is the advancing homosexual agenda," she said. She called on Americans like herself who are concerned about "so many attempts to silence God's word" to pave the way for political action with "fervent prayer."

Keyes: Mission To Kill Bin Laden May Have Been "Driven By Political Considerations"

After warning that President Obama was devising a scheme of using international forces to stay in power, Alan Keyes is now raising doubts about the successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden. Keyes likens the Obama administration to the Soviet Union, and claims that “back chatter” tells him that Obama and his advisers may have been opposed to the raid against bin Laden because of his “politically correct concerns about offending Islamic sensibilities” that made him “act the part of timid politicos.” But Keyes also maintains that Obama wanted bin Laden killed rather than capture him alive for more sinister, politically-motivated reasons:

Following the track of events in America's governmental and political life these days is like reading Pravda in the heyday of Soviet Communism. This should come as no surprise in an era when the executive branch of the U.S. government is dominated by a faction whose figurehead sports a biography steeped in his ideological affinity for hard-line leftist associates (not excluding the kind of terrorist affinities for which Obama mentor Bill Ayers is justly infamous).

The ostensible decapitation of the al-Qaida terrorist network (otherwise known as the takedown of Osama bin Laden) has just the sort of pretzel twists that beg for an informational Rosetta stone and an expert to make good use of it who is well-versed in the many arcane languages of political intrigue. The sequence of events, like the characters, words and phrases of an unknown language, have what seems to be a familiar structure. But every translation runs into contradictions that disturb the complacent assumption that we are dealing with familiar terms.

Back chatter is also coming to the fore that suggests that both the timeline and substance of the decision-making process were hardly as straightforward as this story line makes them appear. Did the U.S. government know of bin Laden's whereabouts for weeks or even months? Was there a tussle over the decision to act against bin Laden, one in which considerations of political risk, joined with politically correct concerns about offending Islamic sensibilities to make Obama and his White House associates act the part of timid politicos, rather than intrepid executives with a righteous zeal for justice?

If you had such an intelligence asset, what would drive your decision to liquidate it? Does it serve an intelligence purpose? Is it driven by political considerations? In this case, the story of Obama's intrepid takedown of the terrorist kingpin draws attention away from the rising influence in the Middle East and North Africa of the fanatical Islamic fundamentalist forces that spawned al-Qaida in the first place. It draws attention away from the pressures now being brought to bear against Israel to accept a practicing terror organization (Hamas) as an interlocutor in the so-called Middle East peace process. And of course, it provides at least a temporary reversal of the American people's distrust and loss of confidence in Obama and his faction.

Childress: Gay Equality Is A Sign Of The End Times

Clenard Childress Jr. is a fervent anti-choice leader who believes that legal abortion is intended to bring about black genocide and Obama wants to destroy the African American community. He founded and is a leader in rabidly anti-choice groups like the Genocide Awareness Project and the Life Education And Resource Network, and helped organize Priests for Life’s “Freedom Rides” against reproductive rights. But Childress isn’t only a militant opponent of abortion-rights, as he penned a column today attacking gays and lesbians and gay rights. Childress criticized religious leaders and people of faith who support equal rights for gays as “false prophets” and that increasing acceptance of gays is a sign of the End Times:

Amazingly enough, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, there are clerics today — false prophets, as it were — who say the Bible does not repudiate homosexuality. When Jesus was threatening a group of religious hypocrites, and said to them it was going to be worse for them than Sodom and Gomorrah, all those of the Jewish culture understood and knew of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by "fire and brimstone" and why it was destroyed. As Christians, should we suppose and can we believe that all of a sudden, God has changed his perspective on homosexuality as these false prophets would have us believe? Are we that stupid? Remember, Jesus said in the last days it would be as the days of Lot.

So, what was it like it the days of Lot? Homosexuality was demanding and imposing itself upon the righteous to capitulate, to yield, to give way to its predominance where Lot lived. Genesis 19:1-5 says,

1 It was evening when the two angels came to Sodom. Lot was sitting at Sodom's [city] gate. Seeing them, Lot rose up to meet them and bowed to the ground.

2 And he said, My lords, turn aside, I beg of you, into your servant's house and spend the night and bathe your feet. Then you can arise early and go on your way. But they said, No, we will spend the night in the square.

3 [Lot] entreated and urged them greatly until they yielded and [with him] entered his house. And he made them a dinner [with drinking] and had unleavened bread which he baked, and they ate.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, all the men from every quarter, surrounded the house.

5 And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.

'Bring the men outside that we may know (be intimate with) them...' Jesus said prophetically that in the last days the homosexual community will demand their lifestyle be accepted as a right in society. And now we are even seeing homosexuality bandied about as a "Civil Right" that should be guaranteed under the Constitution similar to some of the rights being sought through the modern "Civil Rights Movement." They are not the same, but be that as it may be, the same Jesus condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their lifestyle.

Phillips: Obama Didn't Want To Kill Bin Laden

Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips is out with his latest conspiracy theory on Osama Bin Laden’s death: Obama opposed the raid on bin Laden’s compound but the military went through with it anyway. According to Phillips, who thinks that Obama isn’t a real American because a “real American” would’ve wrapped bin Laden’s body in pig fat, military and intelligence officers went behind Obama’s back to execute the mission. He says that Obama’s stern facial expression and serious demeanor in his address to the country shows that he was angry about the successful operation.

Of course, this contradicts Phillips’s previous claim that Obama only wanted to kill bin Laden to help his reelection campaign, but Phillips cites his source as a “story floating around the Internet” so this one must be true:

There is another story floating around the Internet that is very interesting and at this point very believable. The military, by and large does not like Obama. The story floating around says that the military put the operation on and only gave Obama forty-eight hours notice the operation was taking place. The Obama regime then spent the forty-eight hours prior to the raid trying to stop it from taking place.

The news story cites unnamed military sources. Ignoring the fact the military, especially the special operations community by and large despises Obama, are there clues this may be true?

The White House has released only one photo from the situation room and in that photo, no one looks really happy. If the propaganda from the regime were true, you would expect to see some jubilation or even relief when raid was over.

When Obama addressed the country, he did not look happy or even relived. He looked angry. Why would he be angry? Perhaps if the military went behind his back?

One of the most interesting stories that have come out of the raid is the fact that communications were blacked out from the Seals for about 25 minutes during the raid. Glitches occur but does anyone really believe the helmet cams all just went down at the same time?

What really happened the night Osama died? If any of these stories are true, and given the way the military and the intelligence community hates the current regime, the truth may well come out next year during the election. For Obama, it will probably come out at the worst possible time.

Seeing Osama dead, priceless. Seeing all of this coming back to bite Obama, epic!

David Barton Lies To Jon Stewart On Sharia Law Views

As Miranda noted yesterday, David Barton raised eyebrows when he told The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that religious law, including Sharia law, is compatible with the Constitution if a locality or state wanted to implement it, as he has a long track record of promoting vehement anti-Muslim views. Julie Ingersoll of Religion Dispatches also pointed out that Barton has consistently criticized “the threat of Islam taking over the country by imposing ‘Sharia Law.’”

But when Stewart asked if Barton was “all right with Sharia law and the whole business” in a Muslim-majority city in America, Barton replied, “Sure, sure.”

However, Barton made the exact opposite point in an interview with anti-Muslim activist Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! for America during his WallBuilders Live radio program.

Discussing a federal judge’s injunction that blocked an Oklahoma law which banned Sharia law, Barton told co-host Rick Green that Sharia law was incompatible with the Constitution.

Barton criticized the judge, saying, “how you can not let [the law] stand when you take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that’s the only oath you’ve taken to uphold, how you gonna throw Sharia in there and make it equal with the Constitution it’s nuts to me.” He went on to allege that secular people like Joy Behar hate Judaism and Christianity and support Sharia law because they want an oppressive, authoritarian government:

Barton: But I love the fact that she points out that 21 states are considering what Oklahoma did, and 11 are likely to pass it this next session. So it’s going to be really significant to see what the federal judge does with that thing, whether he’s gonna let it stand or not. And how you can not let it stand when you take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that’s the only oath you’ve taken to uphold, how you gonna throw Sharia in there and make it equal with the Constitution it’s nuts to me. But we’ve seen judges do nutty things so that’s not unusual.

Green: And I’m thinking long term strategy on this thing because this will probably take several years to play out in the courts, but its good that these other states are gonna do it too because we’d like to see this come up through several courts of appeals—

Barton: And get an overwhelming thing. You know, the other thing that I found really interesting listening to Brigitte and talk about her life and stuff that was going on and how strong she is. I find it so strong that you can take all these militant, anti-Christian—Joyce Behar—she’s got the cable news program, she’s on The View, you remember O’Reilly goes on there and makes a comment about Muslims being terrorists and she walks off the program in a rage. She is all the time berating every Christians out there. She’s smashing—

Green: And defending the terrorists.

Barton: Now, this is what’s kind of interesting to me. Secular people do not like religion, but they do like Islam. So maybe Islam is not a religion, maybe it is a way of life. Because why is it that secular people who hate Judaism, who hate Christianity, they love Muslims? It’s because of the tyrannical control over lives. This is what these guys want to do through government and they want the same kind of control, so Sharia that’s a great way to control.

Green: It fits right into their way of thinking things some work.

Barton: It does, their view that we ought to be control. It’s just crazy.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • Think Progress: Tonight’s GOP Debate Sponsored By Extremists: John Birch Society And The Oath Keepers
  • Daily Kos: A Democratic President kills Bin Laden And The GOP World Turns Upside Down.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Bill Donohue isn’t a fan of the just-released music video of Lady Gaga’s “Judas.”

Fact Checking Barton Part V: Treaty of Tripoli

When David Barton and Jon Stewart begin discussing the Treaty of Tripoli (11:30 into the interview), Barton maintains that it simply demonstrates that the US isn’t an anti-Muslim nation like Tripoli’s European enemies. But Article 11 of the treaty clearly states that the US isn’t an anti-Muslim nation because “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Here is the full text of Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Barton goes on to allege that Article 11 wasn’t in the original document. While there is confusion with how Article 11 materialized, there is no doubt that it was included in the treaty that was ratified unanimously by the Senate and approved by John Adams.

Rob Boston found in his research on diplomat Joel Barlow and the Treaty of Tripoli [PDF] that Article 11 was in fact part of the original treaty, negotiated under George Washington and ratified under Adams, and the only version without it is in an Arabic version, not the one ratified by the US:

In recent years, some “Christian nation” advocates have argued that Article 11 never appeared in the treaty. They base the claim on research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli.

But Hurgronje’s discovery is irrelevant. There is no longer any doubt that the English version of the treaty transmitted to the United States did contain the “no Christian nation” language. Article 11 appeared intact in newspapers of the day as well as in volumes of treaties and proceedings of Congress published later, including the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, published in 1797, and in a 1799 volume titled The Laws of the United States. In 1832 Article 11 appeared in the treaty when it was reprinted in Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States 1789-1815, Volume II – a tome that can still be examined today in the Library of Congress’ main reading room.

Furthermore, in Hunter Miller’s definitive 1931 work on treaties from this period, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, he notes that “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery.