All

Lou Engle Is Coming To Michigan To Convert Muslims

When Lou Engle announced The Call will be coming to Detroit, he initially focused on using prayer to revive the city and to have African Americans release whites from becoming “slaves” of guilt. But in a new advertisement for his prayer rally, Engle discusses the need to bring Christianity to the Muslims in Detroit and nearby city of Dearborn, a city which many in the Religious Right wrongly think is subject to Sharia law. “We’re launching a house of prayer between Detroit and Dearborn,” Engle said, “I believe His target of intercession is for Muslims to know the love of Jesus and a breakthrough of revival in Detroit.” Engle’s The Call is the model for a similar prayer rally, The Response, hosted by Texas Governor Rick Perry, the American Family Association, and the International House of Prayer, which is closely affiliated with the The Call.

EW Jackson: It Is A Joke To Call Obama A Christian

Bishop E.W. Jackson is a fringe Religious Right activist, the sort who pals around with the likes of Rick Scarborough and Janet Porter while likening Democrats to slaveholders, calling them the "coalition of the godless," and making it his mission to get African Americans to leave the Democratic Party.

He is also running for the open Senate seat from Virginia ... and is currently out on the campaign trail attacking President Obama for loving Islam more than he loves America and claiming it is a "joke" to even consider Obama to be a Christian:

Rep. Akin Is Sorry...That You Misunderstood Him

Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) continues to face criticism for comments he made, first reported here at Right Wing Watch, that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.” After defending his comments during a radio interview, in a new statement he tries to walk them back. Akin says in a new statement that it’s not that liberals hate God, just that liberal beliefs hate God. Get it?

People, who know me and my family, know that we take our faith and beliefs very seriously. As Christians, we would never question the sincerity of anyone’s personal relationship with God. My statement during my radio interview was directed at the political movement, Liberalism, not at any specific individual. If my statement gave a different impression, I offer my apologies.

My point was to object to the systematic assault that attempts to remove any reference to God from the public square.

NBC’s recent action only highlighted the continuing battle for those of us who believe that removing references to God go contrary to the Judeo-Christian heritage our nation was founded on -- the belief that our inalienable rights come from God himself, and the freedom to live our lives and worship as we see fit.

According to a report from NBC-affiliate KSDK, a group of clergymen will try to meet with the Congressman:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also reports that his apology has done little to end the outcry:

But the apology fell flat with a group of St. Louis-area clergy members, most of whom are liberal. They plan to gather at the Akin's Ballwin district office at 11 a.m. today to deliver a letter calling on him to "reconsider not only your words, but also your moral priorities as a political leader."

"Congressman Akin continues to insist that liberalism is anti-religion. As a pastor and a constituent of Congressman Akin's, I find this deeply offensive," said the Rev. Kevin Cameron of Parkway United Church of Christ in west St. Louis County.



The Rev. Krista Taves of Emerson Unitarian Universalist Chapel in Ellisville said Akin's comment 'shows how very little he knows about liberals, and how very little he knows about God."

Janet Porter's Heartbeat Bill Passes Ohio State House

The Ohio State House finally voted on and passed Janet Porter’s “Heartbeat bill,” which would criminalize abortion in most cases. Conspicuously absent was a statement from the state’s leading anti-choice group, the Ohio Right to Life Society, which actually opposed the bill because it is blatantly unconstitutional. Now Porter’s prized legislation moves on to the Senate, and her group Faith2Action released a congratulatory statement:

“For every battle weary pro-lifer who didn't see how children were going to be protected in our lifetime, come see what God is doing in Ohio. Protection for babies with beating hearts is within reach for the first time since Roe stripped their rights away. I have never been more hopeful for restoring protection to babies with beating hearts than I am right now,” declared Janet (Folger) Porter, president of Ohio-based Faith2Action and a former legislative director for Ohio Right to Life.

In meetings with bill supporters, several of the state senators have expressed interest in serving as a sponsor or co-sponsor for the bill.

The bill was backed by a number of national Republican figures including presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, and Porter even had two fetuses “testify” in favor of the bill.

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Despite having accomplished next to nothing legislatively, Rep. Michele Bachmann is running for president.
  • But she is confident that the Republican Party will "be very happy" with her serving as the GOP presidential nominee.
  • Of course, her former Chief of Staff says Bachmann is entirely unready to be president.
  • Herman Cain is looking for people who "have been abused by the EPA" ... so he can put them in charge of the EPA when he becomes president.
  • But before he can do that, he better start looking for people to staff his campaign in New Hampshire.
  • When Glenn Beck heads to Israel for his next rally, he will also address a Knesset committee to "discuss how to fight the delegitimization of Israel around the world."

Understanding Bachmann's View That The Founders Opposed Slavery

Today Michele Bachmann refused to back down from her previous claim that the Founding Fathers, many of whom were slaveholders, actually opposed slavery. She cited John Quincy Adams, who was nine years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed, to prove her argument that the Founders worked to end slavery. But Bachmann’s belief that the Founding Fathers were actually abolitionists makes sense in the world of conservative alternative history created by David Barton.

Bachmann is a fan of Barton and even invited the pseudo-historian to address members of Congress in a lecture sponsored by her House Tea Party Caucus. Barton insists that Founders were not only devoted opponents of slavery, but actually fought the revolution against Britain to end it. Even though Britain abolished slavery two decades before the U.S., Barton insists that the War of Independence was really about America’s desire to end slavery against Britain’s wishes:

Colson: Tolerance Breeds Totalitarianism

After warning that rights for gays and lesbians will destroy democracy, Chuck Colson now says that “the tyranny of tolerance” can drive America into a totalitarian state. Colson employs the worn out Religious Right argument that Christians face the most persecution and discrimination in America, arguing that tolerance in American society will be the end of freedom:

Is it possible that America could lapse into totalitarianism? Well, it’s not impossible, and I’ll tell you why not.



The Western experiment in liberal democracy, best embodied in the United States, achieved representative government, balance of powers, sphere sovereignty, the rule of law. These are bulwarks against totalitarianism.

But the very astute French observer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned that even America could descend into soft despotism. That could happen, he warned, when the people expect their elected leaders to take care of them and their needs. Sound familiar?

But I’ve thought of another way democracy can slide into totalitarianism—the moral foundations of society erode so badly that the people become malleable. They embrace relativism, as we have in America today; they no longer believe in right and wrong. So popular culture, the educational and political elite, teach us that it’s wrong to judge other people. Tolerance becomes the supreme public virtue.

When that happens, however, somebody has to enforce the tolerance. So-called cultural arbiters—the media, the academics, political leaders—begin to prescribe which things are in bounds and which things are out of bounds for public discussion.



This is akin to the soft despotism de Tocqueville warned about, the tyranny of tolerance where the cultural elites seek to eliminate the free expression of moral views in American life.

And that, my friends, is totalitarianism of an unexpected kind. It’s the kind that can catch you by surprise, where you’ll wake up one day to find that you have lost your freedom.

Dr. Barton Recommends Getting Your Healthcare Advice Straight From The Bible

Last week, I stumbled upon a video on YouTube of a presentation David Barton made at a Citizens for Community Values banquet earlier this year and decided to watch it.  But by now, I have seen Barton's standard presentation so many times that I could almost recite it by heart and this one was no different from any of the dozens of other such presentations I have watched him deliver ... with one exception.

In this presentation, Barton made an aside to recommend a book called "None Of These Diseases" by S.I. McMillen, calling it "one of the best healthcare books you'll ever read."  So I decided to order a copy - not one of the updated and whitewashed versions being sold today, but the original 1963 version that read just as McMillen intended it - and, once I received it, it became obvious as why Barton would recommend it since it is basically a medical version of the sort of political propaganda that Barton peddles professionally. 

Most of the book is dedicated to explaining how all medical advances were first foretold in the Bible and declaring that people would be so much happier and healthier if they just followed the health advice set forth in Scripture ... and how it would protect them from schizophrenia:

The individual who has Christ in his heart and the Bible in his hand has splendid fortifications against man's greatest mental disturbance - schizophrenia. Why do I make that statement? It is medically recognized that schizophrenia is the result of anxiety stemming from an inability to meet the adjustments of adulthood. In highly predisposed individuals even a little anxiety can tip the scales. Furthermore, it is felt that any individual, if subjected to sufficient stress, could experience the schizophrenic reaction.

Naturally, anything that lessens anxiety is important in the prevention of schizophrenia. In reduction of anxiety, nothing is more important than spiritual conversion and Christian living. Anyone who ever truly repented his sins and asked God to forgive him can never forget the miraculous way in which his mind was immediately freed of "the guilt complex."

Elsewhere, McMillen states that promiscuity is the cause of arthritis and insanity and that it is not necessary for women to experience orgasm:

Many a young girl has dampened my desk with her tears. The shame, the disgrace, and the ostracism brand her, and the pain often lasts through many years. A great variety of resulting neurotic manifestations can produce any of the many psychosomatic diseases. The community does not know, but the physician knows, that breaking through God's fences around sex is the basic cause of Kathy's toxic goiter, or Helen's arthritis, or Suzanne's commitment to the insane asylum.

...

Some authorities state that less than half of married women have ever experienced sexual orgasm. However, the emotions they derive from the sexual act are beautiful and completely gratifying without the need for any physical climax. Their emotions are diffused throughout their bodies. To them the glowing embers of hardwood are just as satisfying as the quick bright flash of a little gunpowder.

Finally, McMillen recommended to a woman whose husband had punched her in the face that the key to a happy marriage was her submission:

Then, as Yvonne held an ice bag over her left eye and looked at me with the other, I gave her a little marriage counseling, somewhat belated to be sure. I ended my lecture with words something like these: "Yvonne, in every marriage, situations are bound to arise in which one of the partners must give in, out of consideration and love for the other partner. Don't feel sorry for yourself if you discover that you are the one who has to give in most of the time. I have strange but good news for you: when you give in to Mike, you are losing your life in the one and only way to find life and worthwhile happiness. The secret to happiness in married life depends on each partner making small sacrifices, readily and cheerfully."

National Review Columnist Compares Marriage Equality To Racial Segregation

Writing for the National Review, columnist George Weigel of the far-right Ethics and Public Policy Center lashes out at marriage equality supporters for comparing their struggle for equal rights to the civil rights movement. According to Weigel, legalizing marriage between same-sex couples is more like imposing racial segregation than ending it: “Legally enforced segregation involved the same kind of coercive state power that the proponents of gay marriage now wish to deploy on behalf of their cause.” He explains that LGBT rights require a “totalitarian impulse” to “remanufacture reality,” claiming that the gay rights movement “is the heir of Bull Connor,” referring to the Birmingham sheriff who violently crushed civil rights demonstrations. Weigel writes:

That usurpation is at the heart of the gay lobby’s emotional, cultural, and political success — the moral mantle of those Freedom Riders whose golden anniversary we mark this year has, so to speak, been successfully claimed by the Stonewall Democratic Club and its epigones. And because the classic civil-rights movement and its righteous demand for equality before the law remains one of the few agreed-upon moral touchstones in 21st-century American culture (another being the Holocaust as an icon of evil), to seize that mantle and wear it is to have won a large part of the battle — as one sees when trying to discuss these questions with otherwise sensible young people.

But the analogy simply doesn’t work. Legally enforced segregation involved the same kind of coercive state power that the proponents of gay marriage now wish to deploy on behalf of their cause. Something natural and obvious — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” — was being denied by the state in its efforts to maintain segregated public facilities and to deny full citizenship rights to African Americans. Once the American people came to see that these arrangements, however hallowed by custom (and prejudice), were, in fact, unnatural and not obvious, the law was changed.

What the gay lobby proposes in the matter of marriage is precisely the opposite of this. Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.