All

Anne Paulk Warns Of Gay 'Brainwashing,' Laments 'Disobedient' Ex-Ex-Gay Ex-Husband

In an appearance on Vocal Point in March, ex-gay activist Anne Paulk lamented that teachers have “brainwashed” students into supporting gay rights, pushing society into a “downward spiral” dominated by “gay propaganda.”

Our children, the younger generation, have been inundated with cultural training or diversity training or tolerance training at their schools, brainwashing essentially, to not actually engage the topic [of homosexuality] from multiple sides or actually examine evidence. They’ve been told what to think over and over again and then punished or made fun of or put off to the side and stand out if they disagree with this gay propaganda. It’s not a matter of data or science or anything else, it’s a matter of intimidation and pressure tactics, and our kids have fallen right into that. It’s now grown up and impacted the younger adult generations and so the impact of that is tremendous and it will continue a downward spiral if we don’t engage the currnet generation with the truth.

When host Jerry Newcombe noted that Paulk’s ex-husband, John Paulk, was the poster boy for the ex-gay movement until he announced last year that he is still gay and renounced ex-gay therapy, Paulk responded that John has been “disobedient” to God: “He walked back into it, that’s true. Can that happen? Absolutely. People can fall, Christians can be disobedient and people who once had a struggle can once again engage that struggle whether it’s alcohol, drugs or any other type of sin struggle, we are not immune to our past, we must either surrender or be invaded by once was and so that is the challenge.”

Newcombe dismissed ex-ex-gays like John Paulk as similar to people who, for a time, stopped cigarette smoking “but unfortunately went back into it.”

Conservative Activist Suggests Hillary Clinton Staged Shoe-Throwing Incident

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh also seems to think the incident was staged.

Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg is promoting the claim that Hillary Clinton staged the incident where a woman threw a shoe at her during a speech in Las Vegas.

On a post for Goldberg’s website, blogger Arthur Louis writes that “Hillary arranged to have the shoe thrown at her,” having “calculated that this would make her seem presidential.”

“Hillary, claiming to be unsure what was thrown, called out ‘Was that a bat?’ I don’t think she meant bat as in baseball,” he continues. “I think she meant bat as in creepy flying rodent. Perhaps she based her guess on the premise that likes attract.”

Along with many other anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, several conservatives similarly accused Clinton of faking a blood clot in her head in order to avoid congressional hearings on Benghazi.

Via Alex Seitz-Wald:

A couple of nights ago, as Hillary Clinton started to address a gathering of recycling experts in Las Vegas, a woman came striding down the aisle toward the stage and threw a shoe at her. Hillary, claiming to be unsure what was thrown, called out “Was that a bat?” I don’t think she meant bat as in baseball. I think she meant bat as in creepy flying rodent. Perhaps she based her guess on the premise that likes attract.



The incident called to many minds the occasion, late in his second term, when George W. Bush, during a public appearance, was forced to duck two shoes thrown by a Muslim journalist. He did so coolly and deftly, like a veteran baseball player trying to avoid being beaned by Roger Clemens. Hillary, on the other hand, ducks flying shoes like a girl, as you can plainly see on the video.

There is a political axiom, I believe first posed by Euclid or Archimedes, that when Hillary does something, or when something happens to her, she has carefully calculated it beforehand. This is almost always true, the one trivial exception being the nomination and election of Barack Obama in 2008.

So it would not be stretching logic to suppose that Hillary arranged to have the shoe thrown at her. Remembering the Bush incident, she may have calculated that this would make her seem presidential. This would explain why Ms. Ernst was not pounded to a pulp by Hillary’s bodyguards, and why she seems on the verge of getting off scot free. Don’t be too surprised, the next time you visit Phoenix, if you see her sitting at a table in a downtown Hillary for President store front, stuffing and sealing envelopes.

I am just guessing, of course, but let’s all watch for possible further evidence that Hillary is trying to remind us of other presidents in their finest hours.

Kevin Swanson Compares Gay-Inclusive Honey Maid Ad To Axe Murder, Cannibalism

Colorado-based pastor Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio is joining the Religious Right outrage frenzy over a gay-inclusive TV ad produced by Nabisco’s Honey Maid.

On Friday, he told co-host Steve Vaughn that the company’s “disgusting” attempt to “promote” homosexuality is just like encouraging axe murder.

When you come down to things like axe murder or homosexuality and you say, ‘we’re really going to promote it and we’re going to encourage everybody in America to engage in this or at least support this thing,’ there will be people on the other side who will take an adamantly opposed position to your support of axe murdering or homosexuality. They will be intolerant, they will be very intolerant of that which is evil, like axe murdering. Here’s my prognostication for Nabisco: I think they’re going to lose business. They say ‘we’ve got lots and lots and lots of positive comments,’ I think they said 50,000 positive comments or something.

Tough bananas, there are still going to be 28 percent, 38 percent, 47 percent of the market that will not go with it. So their decision to step out and say, ‘we’re going to take the lowest road possible on this, we’re going to support one of the most egregious things ever concocted since Nero — Nero being the one who came up with homosexual marriage, the namesake for it — we’re going to support the Neronic agenda,’ there will be I think 28 percent, 38 percent, it may eventually go as low as 28 percent, but you’re still going to get a pretty substantial bunch of Americans that will say, ‘hey, this is disgusting, Nabisco is disgusting.’

He also took issue with Honey Maid’s video response to its critics, wondering whether the next ad will include a “family where a dog is the wife with a human husband.”

Swanson also claimed that God will object to the TV ad because “the problem with this ‘love’ thing is you can define it anyway you want. Homosexuals love their friends and cannibals love their victims, they taste good.”

Nabisco apparently came out with this ‘Wholesome’ ad for ‘Wholesome Honey Maid and Teddy Grahams,’ it’s causing a huge stir. The company is fighting the negativity with another ad called ‘Love.’ Here’s what happened: Nabisco presented an ad in which they equated mixed race families to single parent families to homosexual families, whatever that is, maybe they had another family where a dog is the wife with a human husband. Does the dog eat wholesome Nabisco doggy bones? So they come out with an ad, then they got backlash because not everybody felt it was wholesome.



Artists printed out the negative comments, rolled them all up and created a sculpture that reads ‘Love’ in cursive script. Isn’t that cute? That’s kind of cute. I wonder what God thinks about that? Didn’t God define love? See the problem with this ‘love’ thing is you can define it anyway you want. Homosexuals love their friends and cannibals love their victims, they taste good.

Gordon Klingenschmitt Warns 'Obama Has Now Gone To Full Perversion As A Matter Of Policy'

Gordon Klingenschmitt, the GOP politician and gay exorcist who believes that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a demonic plot to make Christians “starve to death” and “participate in sodomy,” yesterday pointed to 2011 OPM guidelines on transgender personnel as proof that “Obama has now gone to full perversion as a matter of policy.”

In an email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, Klingenschmitt said that job protections for transgender employees will “violate the privacy rights of all women and little girls, exposing them to naked men with mental disorders.”

“Worse yet, if Nancy Pelosi's ENDA becomes law, all Christian business-owners nationwide will be punished if they refuse to open ladies’ restrooms to cross-dressing men,” he added.

The Obama Administration has opened womens [sic] restrooms to cross-dressing men.

President "Obama's Office of Personnel Management has published what it calls 'Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Workplace.' This document speaks of 'sex' as something a person has 'assigned' to them only after they make it through the birth canal," reports TownHall.com. …

Obama has now gone to full perversion as a matter of policy. When violating the privacy rights of all women and little girls, exposing them to naked men with mental disorders who pretend and deceive themselves, he now requires we believe their deception with them.

Worse yet, if Nancy Pelosi's ENDA becomes law, all Christian business-owners nationwide will be punished if they refuse to open ladies' restrooms to cross-dressing men.



Friends, their version of tolerance now requires bankrupting Christian employers, or any public restaurant or retail store that refuses men full access to women's bathrooms. We must take action to stop ENDA from becoming law.

'I Want Nothing To Do With You,' Beck Tells Those Threatening Violence In Anti-Government Standoff

While just about the entire right-wing movement has rallied behind Cliven Bundy, the Nevada cattle rancher locked in a battle with the federal government over his refusal to recognize the government's control over public grazing lands, Glenn Beck, of all people, is refusing to do so.

This showdown ought to be the sort of thing that Beck eagerly embraces and you can tell that it is causing his extreme consternation not to be able to do so, but he is very concerned about the fact that the anti-government forces that have lined up behind Bundy are issuing threats of violence, which is why he penned an open letter over the weekend saying that he cannot side with them and, instead, calling for people to turn to God:

I do not mean to lecture you or anyone else. I am so far away from a perfect man. In fact I am very much the “dispensable man”, the opposite of the man I am striving to be, but I am working on it. I pour over my scriptures like never before. I rarely am with out them. I read them day and night, in bed, in the car, on the set, and at the dinner table and yet I am a million miles from where The Lord needs his people. For this too, I repent. ”I am sorry Lord for not being ready for your call.” I am one that is finding there is no oil in my lamp.

Never try to create your own miracles. Every time you will fail and make it worse. Moses thought he would make it better when he killed the Egyptian but it only delayed freedom.

I worry about the rancher and his family. The ranchers around him and all around the country. I was blowing the warning trumpets on this kind of usurpation long ago. But any fan of mine knows that I have also said that I will never call for arms with the state of our faith.

I, too, am a rancher but the ultimate rancher is God and we are His flock. I will follow His voice for it is the only one I recognize.

I am sorry, but as all MY real fans know, I believe Ghandi, MLK, Bonhoeffer and Jesus were right. I will follow their example. I know what that means or meant for them.

But I will stand with The Lord.

That message was not well-received on Beck's Facebook page, which prompted him to declare that "those of you calling for violence over this Nevada standoff are not supporters or any kind of long-term fan of mine":

Beck discussed the situation again on his radio program today, saying that he would be speaking with Bundy later in the broadcast and reiterating that he was very disturbed by the violent threats being issued by those who had rallied around Bundy, asserting that God does not support what they are doing and therefore "I will have nothing to do with you":

What If Hobby Lobby Wins?

David Barton, an influential conservative activist who helped write the Republican Party’s 2012 platform, argues that the Bible opposes the minimum wage, unions and collective bargaining, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and progressive taxation in general. Should a company whose owners share Barton’s views be allowed to ignore laws that protect workers by claiming that those laws violate the company’s religious beliefs?

That’s a questions being asked as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether it will recognize for the first time ever that for-profit corporations can make religious freedom claims under federal law.

When an actual human being goes to court with a claim that the federal government is violating their freedom to practice their religion, judges consider several questions in applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Does the law or policy in question place a substantial burden on the person’s religious exercise? If so, can it be justified because the law is advancing a compelling government interest and doing so in the least restrictive way?

That’s pretty straightforward, even if individual cases require tough judgment calls about what constitutes a substantial burden and a compelling government interest. But what happens when a for-profit corporation claims a law violates its exercise of religion? Can a business have a religious conscience?

That crucial question is being considered by the Supreme Court in two cases brought by for-profit corporations claiming their religious freedom is violated by a requirement that their insurance plans include comprehensive contraception coverage. In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, business owners say their companies should not be required to provide their employees with insurance that covers kinds of contraception that violate the business owners’ religious beliefs or what they say are the religious beliefs of the corporation itself.

Legal scholars have weighed in on both sides of the claim. While federal courts have never recognized a for-profit corporation’s right to make a religious exercise claim, they have also never explicitly ruled that there is no such right. In the cases now before the Supreme Court, two appeals courts disagreed with each other. The Tenth Circuit sided with Hobby Lobby but the Third Circuit said, “[W]e simply cannot understand how a for-profit secular corporation—apart from its owners—can exercise religion.”

If the Supreme Court sets a new precedent granting for-profit corporations a soul, so to speak, where will it end? Law professors Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle warn that it would produce “a massive redistribution of legal leverage away from employees and to their employers.” And, they write, “If Hobby Lobby’s claims prevail…other employer claims under RFRA will be very difficult to deny. Some current cases involve objections to coverage of all pregnancy prevention services. In the future, others may involve protection of employees with respect to different medical services, collective bargaining, family leave, or invidious discrimination.”

The Becket Fund, the conservative legal group representing Hobby Lobby, dismisses concerns about opening the floodgates to all kinds of religious objections, saying it hasn’t happened under RFRA to date. But of course, no Court has yet invited the flood of objections by giving business owners the right to claim corporate exemptions for religious belief.

Justice Elena Kagan raised this concern during oral argument, asking Hobby Lobby’s lawyer Paul Clement about employers who might have religious objections to sex discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, and child labor or family leave laws. Clement said he doubted the “parade of horribles” would happen. But Justice Kagan replied that if the Court were to adopt his argument, “then you would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork with respect to all of these laws." Solicitor General Paul Verrilli noted that if the Court grants corporations a right to make free exercise claims, judges will have to grapple with potential harm to employees and other third parties.

But it’s not just employees who could be hurt by such a ruling – it could be companies themselves. David Gans, writing for Slate, made an interesting observation: corporate America is staying out of this case almost completely, which is surprising given its eagerness to use federal courts to promote corporate interests. Gans says that not a single Fortune 500 company filed a brief in the case. Neither did the Chamber of Commerce or the National Federation of Independent Business. The corporate voices that did weigh in — the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce — oppose Hobby Lobby’s claims because recognizing a corporate right to the free exercise of religion would “wreak havoc in corporate boardrooms.”

Gans cites a brief from a group of corporate law scholars “who argued that Hobby Lobby’s argument would eviscerate the fabric of corporate law” because ascribing a business owner’s religious views to the corporation would treat the owner and company as one and the same. “Such an unprincipled, idiosyncratic exception from corporate law fundamentals, the scholars argued, would breed confusion in the law, lead to costly litigation, and undermine critical aspects of corporate law designed to spur creativity and innovation.”

Mary Ann Glendon, a law professor who serves on Becket’s board, has argued that if we want businesses to behave responsibly, “they must be treated as having some moral agency.” The Supreme Court, she says, “should take the opportunity to confirm that businesses can and should have consciences.” It’s a nice thought. But given right-wing efforts to merge the Tea Party and Religious Right, and foster a growing belief that far-right economics and anti-government ideology are grounded in religious dogma, it seems highly unlikely that the consequence of giving conservative business leaders a powerful new tool for undermining government regulation would be more socially responsible corporate behavior.

Tony Perkins' Disingenuous Boycott 'Outrage'

On Saturday, Mike Huckabee and Tony Perkins chatted about Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s decision to play down his opposition to marriage equality, with Perkins suggesting that he is a “coward.”

The two also stepped up their attack on gay rights and liberal activists who backed a boycott of the restaurant chain and said that they would never target businesses over their views on gay rights.

Huckabee said that “nobody” is targeting left-leaning CEOs like Howard Schultz of Starbucks, and Perkins charged that such boycotts wrongly “silence” political speech and undermine freedom and liberty.

Of course, Perkins was being totally disingenuous as he has personally endorsed several boycott campaigns…including a boycott of Starbucks over its stance on gay rights.

Perkins and his group, the Family Research Council, championed a boycott of Girl Scouts cookies, and helped lead boycott campaigns targeting companies like McDonalds and Wal-Mart [PDF] over their stances on gay rights.

Last year, Perkins called for a boycott of Betty Crocker after the company donated custom cakes to same-sex weddings after Minnesota approved marriage equality.

Despite this clear double standard, Perkins continues to get away with his claim that only gay rights advocates target businesses and that Religious Right activists — always the victim — would never ever do such a thing.

BarbWire: Obama, Pro-Gay Rights Christians Are 'Servants Of Satan'

Lee Duigon of the Chalcedon Foundation, a Christian Reconstructionist group whose founder R.J. Rushdoony supported the death penalty for gay people, writes today in BarbWire that President Obama and pastors who officiate same-sex weddings, among others, are evil “servants of Satan.”

He adds that he doesn’t understand why “libs ‘n’ progs and atheists and other specimens of the Far Left” are offended when he calls them Satanic: “I don’t see why that should be hard to understand.”

For people whose chief mode of discourse consists of shouting and calling names, any time they encounter someone who doesn’t go along with them, libs ‘n’ progs and atheists and other specimens of the Far Left are surprisingly thin-skinned.



Being a servant of Satan involves more than just sinning. After all, we are all sinners; otherwise, we wouldn’t need a Savior. It’s like the difference between an ordinary homosexual, a sinner like the rest of us, and a flatline Protestant minister who performs same-sex parodies of marriage in his church. The latter is a servant of Satan. And in this day and age, we’ve raised up a bumper crop of them.

I don’t see why that should be hard to understand, except to those who don’t want to understand–maybe because a lot of their heroes are servants of Satan. Margaret Sanger, Richard Dawkins, Alfred Kinsey, the current occupier of the White House, Mikey Weinstein – we could spend a whole day listing them. But they are all servants of Satan, because they all preach and teach that evil is good, and good is evil; they all seek to nullify God’s laws; and they have all labored to create a world from which God’s laws are erased.

If that’s not serving Satan, what is?

Rep. Lou Barletta: Sanctuary Cities Making Us 'A Third-World Country'

Republican Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania said last week that policies friendly to undocumented immigrants "reward people who want to tear down our laws and make us a third-world country."

Speaking with radio host Lars Larson at the anti-immigrant group FAIR's "Hold Their Feet to The Fire" event, Barletta complained about "sanctuary cities," which he has previously proposed cutting off from federal funding. Barletta is the former mayor of Hazleton, Pa., where he enacted one of the harshest anti-immigrant ordinances in the country, which was struck down by federal courts before it could ever be enforced.

"We continue to send federal dollars to mayors who are above the law," he said. "And then you have a mayor, such as myself in Hazleton, who gets sued for wanting to enforce the laws.

"And there's something wrong with the direction this country's been going when we begin to reward people who want to tear down our laws and make us a third-world country where we get to pick and choose what we want to do.​"


Larson: If the party picks [Jeb Bush] as the nominee, they're sending a powerful message to Americans that we're going to give away the vote and we're going to give away the whole meaning of what it means to obey the law.

Barletta: Absolutely, and it's what made our country so exceptional is that we were a country that has laws, and you cannot pick and choose what laws you enforce and what laws you can't. But here you have in the case of immigration -- illegal immigration -- you have mayors who declare themselves sanctuary cities, who are not going to enforce immigration laws. Nothing happens to them. We continue to send federal dollars to mayors who are above the law. And then you have a mayor, such as myself in Hazleton, who gets sued for wanting to enforce the laws.

And there's something wrong with the direction this country's been going when we begin to reward people who want to tear down our laws and make us a third-world country where we get to pick and choose what we want to do.

Barber: Transgender Equality Guidelines Are A 'War On Women' That Have Legalized Sexual Harassment

There are few issues that as clearly highlight the Religious Right's undisguised bigotry quite like transgender equality as it is a topic that people like Matt Barber and Mat Staver can't even discuss except with sneering contempt, as they did on today's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast.

Barber and Staver are disgusted by the fact that the Office of Personnel Management has issued guidelines (dating back to 2011) "Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Federal Workplace," which Barber said is nothing more than a full-scale "War on Woman" through which sexual harassment has now been legalized:

We're talking about men in skirts here. That's what we're talking about. Let's just not beat around the bush with all the PC nonsense that the Left likes to use, transgender, transsexual,  we're talking about men in skirts and high heels and lipstick that want to go in - some of them because they get their jollies doing it, others because they're completely and utterly sexually confused - they want to go in an use the ladies showers and the ladies locker rooms whether or not they're biologically still or whether or not they've had a surgery to cosmetically make them appear more like a female, which they never do.  People can pretty much look and still tell this is a man that has gone under the knife. It's really sad.

But here, President Obama and this Obama administration, talk about the War on Women, they have now officially made for federal employees sexual harassment the law of the land. This creates an environment where now women cannot even comfortably use a bathroom or the showering facilities and locker facilities without fear that some man, leering man, is gonna be there in the locker room or the bathrooms along with them and that is sexual harassment because if they feel harassed and made uncomfortable by that, sexual harassment is a subjective analysis here, they're being sexually harassed.

Talk about the War on Women, President Obama has launched one.