All

Linda Harvey Marks Labor Day By Promoting Anti-Gay Discrimination

Mission America’s Linda Harvey explained the real meaning of Labor Day which, of course, is about workers resisting “homosexual lobby” activists who want to “force public respect for their deviance.”

During her radio bulletin yesterday, Harvey defended business owners who deny service to gays and lesbians, saying that they are victims of “spiteful bullying.”

“Our country is in trouble, friends, because of these radicals who want to revolutionize our moral standards,” she said. “How far will extremists go to push us into sexual anarchy? Let’s pledge to start this Fall to do what we can — lawfully of course — to stand up for our principles. This evil does not ultimately win, we know, but we can make sure it doesn’t even win in the here and now.”

BarbWire Columnist: Homosexuality Is Violence Against God

Rev. William Cook of the Black Robe Regiment took to BarbWire last week to warn that the Devil is taking over the United States through gay rights and legal abortion, telling conservative churches that “this is a time to fight!”

“By sanctioning abortion, and more recently, sodomy, America has done violence to the Imago Dei and itself,” Cook said.

“America was given a choice between liberty and death. America chose death, and shall have tyranny.”

The Church in America is facing existential threats, of a far more serious nature than an overbearing mother country, but walk into atypical evangelical church in “anytown USA” on a Sunday morning, and you would never know “there’s a war on.” You may hear a sermon on abortion if you show up on Sanctity of Life Sunday; on the threat to the General Welfare of unmitigated sodomy, almost never; and on the growing threat of Islamofacism or on civic duty, never. The importance of giving and volunteering for some aspect of the Sunday event, however, will almost always be touched on, but the fact that the world is burning, or that America is crumbling because the “pillar and support of the truth” (the Church) (1 Timothy 3:15) has surrendered government to the “sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2), who haven’t a clue how to secure Liberty, will not come up in today’s “seeker-sensitive” ecclesial culture, because the Three Wise Monkeys (“see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil,”) rule the pulpit.



Does submission to governing authority mean, as some seem to believe, that we should capitulate with the confiscation of our natural rights and those of our posterity? That we should relinquish the right to life of the unborn to the misguided ambivalence of a few in the pew? That we should sentence millions who cannot discern between their right and left hands to the fate of Sodom by preaching around sodomy? That we should let sleeping consciences lie in the place Divine judgment is set to begin? (1 Peter 4:17) That we should surrender our own and our Posterity’s Liberty to tyranny without a fight? Did not Adam cede his own and his posterity’s liberty to the father of tyrants when he submitted to the serpent’s lie?



By sanctioning abortion, and more recently, sodomy, America has done violence to the Imago Dei and itself. Nation’s that rebel against the Divine prescription for supremacy over the “elemental principles of the world,” (Gal. 4:3) inevitably come to be ruled by them. America was given a choice between liberty and death. America chose death, and shall have tyranny.

But some will say, “I have not had an abortion. I am not homosexual. I believe abortion and sodomy are wrong. I can’t impose my beliefs on others, can I?” Silence is tacit approval. Therefore, “silence in the face of evil is evil,” as is withholding a single “jot or tittle” of God’s counsel, or anything that would benefit to God’s people. (Acts 20:20, 27) Rather than equivocate, perhaps we should obey God and “deliver the society that is marching toward oblivion of its own accord, and blindly staggering to slaughter.” (Proverbs 24:11 paraphrased)

This is a time to fight!

Starnes: Obama Won't Confront ISIS Because He Is 'Accommodating The Islamic Faith At The Expense Of All Other Faiths'

Todd Starnes called into Alice Stewart's radio show today to discuss a report from Fox News claiming that President Obama had been briefed on ISIS for over a year but took no action, with Starnes citing this report as evidence that Obama is refusing to confront radical Islamic groups because he favors Islam over Christianity.

Stewart warned that Obama is letting militant groups rise throughout the Middle East as "just the first step in the Islamification of America" and Starnes agreed, saying that "this may very well be the subject of my next book."

"The soft targets in this country are the churches," Starnes said, "and we do know that the terrorists are living among us; it's just a matter of when they are going to strike and who they're going to strike. If nothing else, and this is going to be a very controversial statement, but looking at the evidence we have, this president's administration seems to be accommodating the Islamic faith at the expense of all other faiths and that is a troubling thing. This needs to nipped in the bud. The president needs to put on the big boy pants and he needs to do the job that he was elected to do, which is to protect our country from the bad guys."

"This is the worst example of bullying of Christians there is," Stewart added, "and we have no strategy whatsoever to deal with it":

Massie: Obama Racist Against Whites, And Wants Black Genocide!

Mychal Massie of WorldNetDaily writes today that President Obama is a racist, “race-mongering infidel” who values “blacks more than he valued all citizens” and hates white people, sentiments which are par for the course at the far-right outlet.

However, Massie also believes Obama is advocating the “systematic extermination” of black people through legal abortion.

So apparently, Obama just hates everybody:

And the utilities he has used to do so are right out of Saul “the Red” Alinsky’s Communist handbook. Those of us who were paying close attention understood that America didn’t need changing and that Obama’s idea of change was to create a socialist state. We understood and warned people pursuant to exactly what Obama stood for, and we warned he was a neo-Leninist with a proclivity for radical Islam who would use skin color and class warfare to divide America.

Now, except for those who are in a terminal state of denial based on an Erebusic ideology and color of skin, there is no longer any doubt that Obama is a neo-Leninist Muslim sympathizer who is committed to transmogrifying America into something that will be unidentifiable to the America our Founding Fathers provided for vis-a-vis our Constitution.



As America comes to the end of Obama’s tyrannical reign, he is pulling the curtains back for all to see. He no longer even pretends to govern within the constraints of the Constitution. He has sanctioned Eric Holder to administer justice based on color-coded enforcement.

He was elected the president of the United States, i.e., of all Americans, but he makes it clear time and time again that while he praises Planned Parenthood for the systematic extermination of unborn black children, he openly despises whites. And he exhibits his contempt for whites at every opportunity.

Some may still try to say he isn’t openly racist, but it is time to call this spade a spade. If he weren’t a race-mongering infidel, he wouldn’t have said Trayvon Martin looked like the son he didn’t have; at the very least, he would have acknowledged that Christopher Lane, the white baseball player who was murdered in Oklahoma by three blacks, could have looked like him if he had a son as well.

If Obama didn’t value the use of blacks more than he valued all citizens, regardless of their skin color, he wouldn’t have sent an “armada” of representatives to the funeral of a black hoodlum while ignoring the funerals of white law-enforcement officers murdered by blacks.

If Obama cared about the United States, he would not have put his golf game above the beheading of American journalist James Foley, even as the Syrian coalition announced to the world that “Foley died because Obama ignored his own red lines.”

As I stated, it is time to call a spade a spade and this one is named Obama.

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/29/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 8/29/14

  • Ben Carson says that he is "an instrument that’s being used to help restore this country."
  • Peter Sprigg is very mad that judges on the 7th Circuit did not seem to buy the right-wing arguments against marriage equality.
  • Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver is also mad and blames it all on Alfred Kinsey.
  • Gary Cass says it is hypocritical for America to be horrified by ISIS: "In Iraq there are foreign invaders brutalizing and beheading children. In America we brutalize and behead our own children! Surgical abortion is nothing less horrific or less brutal than what we see happening to the children in Iraq, only WE ARE DOING IT TO OUR OWN CHILDREN!"
  • Chris McDaniel made yet another appearance on Bryan Fischer's radio show today.
  • Finally, speaking of Fischer, he delivered another insightful science lesson today when he explained that Jesus is the magic force that holds the entire universe together:

WorldNetDaily Pundit Inadvertently Explains Why Bundy Supporters Went Quiet On Ferguson

Yesterday, we asked why the anti-government “Patriot” movement that was so angry about perceived government overreach at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada was all but silent about the arrival of police officers in military grade gear to quell protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

The best explanation, we said, was race: both the Right’s general denial that race plays a role in American life until liberals bring it up, and the sense among some in the anti-government Right that African Americans, even when they are protesting government overreach, are actually tools of the government.

Today, WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer demonstrated this very point for us in a column in which she says she will not stand with those protesting in Ferguson, even though she agrees with them on many issues, because they are trying to make it about race.

Mercer, who defended Cliven Bundy in his stand-off with the government, writes that she is very angry about “police brutality,” the “militarization of the police force” and the “rise of the warrior cop”; that she supports drug decriminalization; and that she thinks that the shooting of Michael Brown was “an unjustified use of lethal police force.”

But, she says, she won’t ally with anybody who sees these issues as racial issues, such as the “two pimps in a pod” Al Sharpton and President Obama, and she blasts Sen. Rand Paul for acknowledging the role of race in Michael Brown’s death.

Police brutality? Yes! Militarization of the police force? You bet! “A Government of Wolves”? Yes again! “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”? No doubt! But racism? Nonsense on stilts! So why have some libertarians applied this rhetoric to the murder-by-cop of black teenager Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri? The same people who would argue against color-coded hate-crime legislation – and rightly so, for a crime is a crime, no matter the skin pigment of perp or prey – would have you believe that it is possible to differentiate a racist from a non-racist shooting or beating.

Laws prohibiting the individual from purchasing, selling, ingesting, inhaling and injecting drugs ought to be repudiated and repealed on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. But statism is not necessarily racism. Drug laws ensnare more blacks, because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing in drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because cops are racists.


The following statements are, I believe, not mutually exclusive: Cops deal with the reality of crime. The culture of U.S. cops is that of a craven disregard for American lives.

By all means, argue against laws prohibiting victimless “crimes” on the ground that these disproportionally ensnare blacks. But do not err in accusing all cops of targeting blacks, when the former are entrusted with enforcing the law, and the latter violate the law in disproportion to their numbers in the general population.

The left-liberal trend continued on the libertarian LewRockwell.com, where white sympathy with the police was conflated with racism: “This doesn’t mean that racism is not also involved [in Ferguson]. Polls show that a majority of white Americans are content with the police justification for the killing.”

Could it be that ordinary Americans maligned as racists are honestly waiting for more information, or suffer an authoritarian, submissive mindset; are ignorant about “police state USA,” or have simply experienced “black crime” firsthand, or are fearful of experiencing “black-on-white violence” in all it ferocity?

Clearly, there are many reasons for the acquiescence of whites in what might seem to many of us – myself included – as an unjustified use of lethal police force.

MSNBC host Al Sharpton is that fellow whose intelligible spoken English is confined to the words “racial discrimination.” The country’s second-leading race agitator has been deputized by its first as liaison to the White House in Ferguson. With his choice of Sharpton as point man on the ground, President Barack Obama, who was to usher in an America in which “ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony,” is stoking more strife.

Like two pimps in a pod, Sharpton and Obama have collaborated to keep racial grievance going.

JD Hayworth Takes On GOP's Women Problem With Incomprehensible Speech About Marriage

Former Arizona Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth, who lost his primary challenge to Sen. John McCain in 2010, has since landed a job as an anchor for Newsmax, where he delivers the news and conducts interviews in a style eerily reminiscent of Parks and Recreation’s Perd Hapley.

Hayworth fully deployed this characteristic flare in an interview today with Kellyanne Conway, a GOP pollster, about a new poll showing that women view the Republican Party as “intolerant” and “stuck in the past.”

When Conway’s Skype connection cut out, Hayworth quipped that she was “frozen in time,” which prompted him to muse that that would be a great attack line for his political opponents.

Hayworth then launched into a barely comprehensible soliliquy about how Conway had changed her name when she married “because people marry and they take different names” and how “you can’t allow your marriage to be caricatured.”

All of which means that there is no gender gap. Or something:

Fischer: Obama's Tan Suit 'Is Not Presidential Dress'

Bryan Fischer was very disappointed in President Obama choice of attire during yesterday's press conference, saying that his suit demonstrated that Obama simply "does not take the responsibilities of the office of the presidency seriously."

"This is not presidential dress. It's not professional," Fischer declared, asserting that President Ronald Reagan had so much respect for the office that he would not even take off his suit coat while he was in the Oval Office:

The myth about Reagan is, of course, totally false ... as is, apparently, Fischer's claim that wearing a tan suit is somehow unpresidential:

Phyllis Schlafly: Women Can Avoid Sexual Assault By Focusing on Marriage, Not Career

In her radio address yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly took on the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault, which she said could be eliminated if women would just get married instead of focusing so much on their careers.

Noting that “marriage settles men down,” Schlafly asked, “So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent 'hookups,' which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.”

We all know that married men can still be violent to their families, but they are far less likely to be violent against women than are live-in boyfriends.

Why is this? It’s true that women who have found men who are already better partners are more likely to marry them, but it’s also true that marriage settles men down. Being married makes a man care more about his family’s expectations and future because he sees his family as enduring. It also makes him more faithful and committed to his partner. Marriage makes men directly protective of their wives, and living in a home with their daughters gives them the opportunity to be directly protective of them as well. Marriage also creates indirect protection for wives and daughters, because married women and their children tend to live in safer neighborhoods.

So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent “hookups,” which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.