All

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/21/13

  • Note to Michele Bachmann, when even Bill O'Reilly is ripping you to shreds, it is time to give it up.
  • Bryan Fischer wants to know why every lawyer working at the Department of Justice hasn't been disbarred for refusing to defend DOMA.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics says that parents’ sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development.  This is, of course, not sitting well with the anti-gay Religious Right.
  • Want to be in a movie being produced by Liberty Counsel and staring Erik Estrada? Of course you do! Auditions start tomorrow.
  • This is the actual title of a piece by CBN's David Brody: "Will the GOP's Inclusive Tone Bring About Its Demise?"
  • Finally, John Hagee says that smoking, like gluttony, is a sin:

Brad Dacus: 'A Compassionate Nation' Can't 'Salute' Homosexuality Because It's 'So Dangerous and So Destructive'

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute discussed the upcoming Supreme Court cases on marriage equality yesterday with host Jim Schneider on VCY America’s Crosstalk.

After a caller on the show ranted about how homosexuality is “Satanic,” Schneider called it an “anti-God lifestyle.” Dacus agreed and added that homosexuality, along with “looseness in the heterosexual community,” are signs that society is “openly waving our fist at God.”

Dacus said increasing support for marriage equality proves that people are unaware of the dangers of homosexuality: “When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts.”

“If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care,” Dacus explained, “then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.”

Schneider: We’re seeing a mass exodus Brad from those who once held to the belief to capitulate to the winds that are blowing today in our society and even a poll just released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News indicating support for same-sex marriage has never been higher, they claim that 58 percent of Americans now believe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed.

Dacus: It’s most unfortunate because it’s a slippery slope, number one, and number two they’re not taking into account the real meaning which is to dilute the sanctity and the definition of marriage that God has given us and that the laws of nature have given us and there’s going to be ramifications for that. When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts and so how anyone can think that it’s in the best interest of America, promoting our general welfare, to change our definition of marriage in view of the ramifications and impact, just purely from an objective and secular perspective, makes absolutely no sense and I think we need to be better communicators of that harm. If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care, then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.

He argued that the members of the United Methodist church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which decided not to perform marriages as long as same-sex couples are denied marriage rights, are “betrayers of the teachings of the Lord” and “have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church.”

Schneider: Another disturbing report came out Monday from CBS News that the Green Street United Methodist Church in North Carolina is actually electing to stop performing marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex marriage is legalized and asking other churches to join them. Brad, in cases like this all I see is the word Ichabod, “the glory of God has departed.”

Dacus: Yeah, when a church decides to take that position it’s discouraging to see them do that because they obviously have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church. They decided to follow the ways of man and “what tickles the ear of the day.” You know Galatians makes it very clear that we can’t be both pleasers of man and pleasers of God which means sometimes we’re not going to be very popular, sometimes when society decides to turn a different direction we can be rejected. But when you see churches do that and people holding themselves out as followers of the Lord and yet being betrayers of the teachings of the Lord and of scripture, it’s very serious to not only the congregation but it’s also especially serious to those in leadership positions abusing their authority.

David Barton Explains Just War Theory: 'We Had to Destroy Indian Tribes' Until They Became Civilized

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton was discussing just war theory which, in his unique interpretation, essentially boiled down to the view that whatever you need to do to end a conflict and protect the lives of your citizens and soldiers is justified.

To demonstrate his point, Barton said that Native Americans declared war on "all the white guys" because missionaries tried to convince them to stop torturing their enemies but they resisted these efforts to civilize them and "so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until" they got the message.

Barton followed that up by defending the practice of wiping out the buffalo on the western plains because it decimated the livelihoods of Native Americans and thereby brought an end to their resistance to the US government:

A lot of it is based on what you have to do to secure justice and to secure the protection of life and liberties for your citizens and you do what you have to do at times, but you play on the rules sometimes that the other guys have set up. And if they're not going to negotiate with things like the Geneva treaty or other rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens.

...

You have to deal, a lot of it, with how the enemy responds. It's got to be based on what the enemy responds [to,] you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists; and see that's why we could not get the Indians to the table to negotiate with us on treaties until after we had thoroughly whipped so many tribes ... What happened was the Indian leaders said "they're trying to change our culture" and so they declared war on all the white guys and went after the white guys and that was King Philip's War.  It was really trying to be civilized on one side and end torture and the Indians were threatened by the ending of torture and so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until they said "oh, got the point, you're doing to us what we're doing to them, okay, we'll sign a treaty."

...

Take, for example, what happened in the western plains wars in the late 1800s when we were taking on the plains Indians.  I'm not talking about treaties, I'm not talking about behavior of Americans toward Indians or vice versa, there were violations on both sides of nearly every treaty.  I'm talking about what happened in ending those wars after Custer and everything that went on.

People complain about the fact that the American military and buffalo hunters went out and wiped out all the buffalo in the western plains.  Doing that was what brought the Indians to their knees because the Indians lived on those wide western plains where there were very few towns; Indians didn't go into town to buy supplies, they went to the buffalo herds, that's where they got their meat, that's where they got their coats, the hides provided coats, they provided covering for their teepees. 

If you don't have the buffalos, those Indians cannot live on the open western plains without those buffalo and so what happened was the military wiped out the supply line by wiping out the buffalo.  That's what brought those wars to an end, that's what brought the Indians to their knees and ended all the western conflict.

Rand Paul's Abortion Exceptions Are Not Really Exceptions

Sen. Rand Paul’s chief of staff Doug Stafford appears to be scrambling to explain the Senator’s recent comments during a CNN interview where he said there would be “thousands of exceptions” to his “Life at Conception Act,” a federal personhood bill that would ban all abortion by granting legal status to embryos. He added that “each individual case would have to be addressed” and that there will “be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

Understandably, many people interpreted his comments to mean that the government shouldn’t be intruding on the medical decisions that are unique to each woman, or the opposite of what his sweeping anti-choice law would do.

But in an interview with LifeSiteNews, Stafford stressed that Paul’s mention of “thousands of exceptions” only “meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases.”

So the “thousands of exceptions” was only really one exception.

And when Paul said that women, their doctord and their families would be free from government interference during the early stage of the pregnancy, Stafford said that Paul was only referring to emergency contraception that prevents fertilization.

Emergency contraception, of course, only works up to 120 hours after sexual intercourse.

Stafford noted that such methods won’t be covered by the law because “it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” while stressing that Paul still seeks to ban RU-486.

Some pro-life activists were left scratching their heads after a recent interview Senator Rand Paul did on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show “The Situation Room,” in which the senator seemed to say he supported “thousands of exceptions” to his general belief that abortion should be illegal. But Paul spokesman Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Wednesday that the senator’s remarks were misunderstood, reiterating that Paul is staunchly pro-life.



After the interview, the Atlantic Wire ran a story with the headline “Rand Paul Isn’t 100% Pro-life Anymore,” arguing that the language Paul used in his answer sounded remarkably similar to pro-choice rhetoric claiming abortion should always be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

But Paul’s chief of staff, Doug Stafford, said the Atlantic got it wrong.

Paul “was speaking medically,” Stafford said.

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

The senator is not in favor of the more nebulous “health of the mother” exception that pro-life advocates argue can be applied to any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

But what about Paul’s statement that the Life at Conception Act may not be able to address early abortions? That, too, was a misunderstanding, according to Stafford. He said the senator was talking about things like emergency contraception pills, which may cause very early abortions, but since they contain the exact same drugs used in standard birth control pills, the senator believes they will be nearly impossible to ban.

Senator Paul “has always said it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” Stafford said. “It simply isn't possible to do so. The law will likely never be able to reach that.”

“You can legislate abortifacients like RU-486, and he would,” he said. “But you can’t legislatively ban artificial estrogen and progesterone.”

Cuccinelli Removes Web Pages to Hide Record On Immigration

With Republicans in Washington looking to moderate the party’s rhetoric on immigration, Virginia Attorney General – and gubernatorial candidate – Ken Cuccinelli is attempting to airbrush his anti-immigration record by removing material from his website. Unfortunately for Cuccinelli, the Internet just doesn’t work that way.

A cached version of his site from February 25th highlights his right-wing record and views. It boasts of his votes against in-state tuition for undocumented students and his crackdowns on hiring undocumented workers. That page is now gone, as are pages opposing gun control and abortion. It seems Cuccinelli thinks he can sidestep his extreme record by simply removing it from his website, or as the Washington Post put it, "Mr. Cuccinelli hasn’t shifted his position; he’s just removed it from public view."

Of course, even the amazing vanishing web pages didn’t include some of Cuccinelli’s most extreme views on immigration, such as his support for Arizona’s SB 1070 and his comparison of immigration policy to pest control. Cuccinelli can play with his website all he likes, but he can’t hide from his extreme, far-right record.

Pat Robertson: Beware 'Scamsters in Religious Garb'

Following a news story on the 700 Club about the Profitable Sunrise investment scam, televangelist Pat Robertson told viewers to beware “scamsters in religious garb quoting the Bible, I mean run from them.”

Of course, if CBN viewers actually followed Robertson's advice, he'd be in deep trouble.

Watch:

Beck: Within Five Years, At Least One European Country Will be Run by the Nazis

At the top of last night's program, before he got around to explaining how President Obama's trip to Israel is really designed to undermine Israel, Glenn Beck discussed the recent election of Pope Francis who was dubbed "The Pope of Hope" on Twitter. 

And that is just what is needed right now, Beck said, because the world is about to be set on fire because we are going to see a rise of a new Axis Powers as he predicted that within "the next five years, there will be a country in Europe that is run by the Nazis":

How The Union's Victory in the Civil War Led to Gay Marriage

Steve Deace once again hosted far-right activist Michael Peroutka on his radio show to discuss the talk show host’s latest column on same-sex marriage and why we should not “validate relationships western civilization, heavily influenced by Biblical moral teaching, has up until now said for over a thousand years were immoral, destructive, and counter-procreative.” Peroutka explained that “the state has perverted” what “God called marriage,” and if we followed God’s laws then there would be “no way we are ever going to validate homo or sodomite-unmarriage.”

This can’t last, we are killing our own children, we are burying our own country; at some point reality has to set in. I like to use the term ‘reality,’ another term you use in your article you talk about if we can ‘wave a magic wand’ and that’s interesting because that’s an allusion to illusion. But what we really need is a dose of reality, what we need to do is wave reality over this situation and go back to what God called marriage, not what the state has perverted the definition to be but what God called marriage. That’s what we need to return to. There is no way we are ever going to validate homo or sodomite-unmarriage because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman once and forever.

Apparently the reason we aren’t following God’s moral code on the issue of marriage or other social issues, according to Peroutka, is because of the Union's victory in the Civil War, or as he called it: “The War Between the States.”

He argued that the South’s defeat opened the door to a “huge black hole of centralized power,” which means that people began looking to the government, rather than God, as the source of their rights.

Peroutka said that “the real effect of the War and the Reconstruction after the war was to take the very foundation of our understanding of our rights away from us, that is to say that they come from God, and put them in the hands of men,” who can then change the meaning of concepts like marriage.

Somehow we don’t think that this neo-Confederate logic is going to do a lot to help marriage equality opponents rescue their plummeting poll numbers.

Deace: What we’re coming down to here is: What is the law? Who determines it? How do we know that’s the right determination? Who gets to essentially apply and impose their interpretation of where the law comes from and what the law is? And we’re seeing that played out and frankly divisively with the marriage issue.

Peroutka: That’s right. When you ask me a question about this issue or other social issues, I always go back to these two standards: What does God say and what does the Constitution say? I don’t go to what many people, political talking heads, go to: What is politically effective? What does conservatism say? What does the Republican Party say? I go where our founders would’ve gone and where they did in fact go to declare their independence from Great Britain, they said: What does God say about this? And then in this case, what does the constitution say? So those are the standards I’m always going to use, it’s a new issue but it’s the same standard.

Deace: It’s the standard that founded this country, all the way from the Puritans to the people that ratified the Constitution.

Peroutka: And ever since, well there have been a number of watershed events in American history that have taken us away from this view that I’m describing, this American view. One of them was ‘The War Between the States.’ Ever since then there’s been this huge black hole of centralized power that’s formed in Washington D.C. People sometimes talk about ‘The War Between the States’ as being about the issue of slavery, I believe that history is written by the winners, it wasn’t about that at all. What it was about was consolidating power into the hands of a few people.

One of the best ways I’ve ever heard this explained to me was I was at a formal dinner party one time and a number of us at the table, a couple of gentlemen were talking about this issue and one lady piped up and she said, “Now don’t you start talking about that my great-great-granddaddy fought for the state of Illinois.” A gentleman at the table looked at her and said, “Mam, your great-great-granddaddy didn’t fight for Illinois, he fought for Washington D.C., maybe New York City, the banking interests, and by so doing he conquered Illinois, along with South Carolina and Tennessee and Alabama.” It was one of the best ways I think I’ve ever heard it explained because the real effect of the War and the Reconstruction after the war was to take the very foundation of our understanding of our rights away from us, that is to say that they come from God, and put them in the hands of men and say that they come from the Supreme Court or they come from the legislature or they come from the executive.

Beck: 'It's All About Hidden Clues'

For Glenn Beck, nothing is ever what is seems and so when President Obama travels to Israel, it cannot be because that is just the sort of thing that presidents do, but rather because there is some nefarious agenda at work.

As Beck sees it, Obama already won the election and has no intention of changing any of his positions on issues pertaining to Israel or the region, so there is no reason for him to travel there ... but he did, and so there must be a hidden reason.

Beck found that hidden reason in a piece that suggests that Obama's visit there is designed to strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and undermine Israel, as he and Rabbi Daniel Lapin agreed that the fact that Obama will not be speaking to the Knesset "conveys a message in terms of hidden clues throughout the Arab Street [that] Obama does not recognize the political and democratic legitimacy of the Israeli government":

LaBarbera: Treat Gay Family Member Like a Drug Addict

Angered by Sen. Rob Portman’s newfound support for marriage equality and an unofficial pro-gay rights panel at CPAC, Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is warning the GOP against “trying to ‘out-gay’ the Democrats.”

LaBarbera’s advises Portman and others to treat their gay family members like drug addicts rather than support them, which he says would be “like telling a loved one who is has a drug problem: ‘I love you so much that I’m going to send you a five ounces of cocaine every month, because that’s how much I care.’”

He claims Portman “kicked God to the curb” and that Hillary Clinton, who recently endorsed marriage equality, “blasphemes her Creator.”

“No nation can survive moral decay of the sort America is experiencing,” LaBarbera writes. “It is the height of folly to dumb down conservatism and jettison the wholesome dictates of the Bible and Christianity because the “Glee” Generation has a new idea about sodomy.”

In the midst of the CPAC gathering, news broke that Sen. Portman had flip-flopped on homosexual “marriage” because his 21-year-old son Will is a homosexual. Thus Portman succumbed to the emotionalism and illogic that dominate post-Christian America. Employing some awful theology, he kicked God to the curb — as is becoming habit in a land that increasingly mocks its own national motto, “In God We Trust.”

Here is a dose of Politically Incorrect truth: homosexual behavior is sinful (read: always wrong in the eyes of God), unnatural, destructive and yet – thankfully – changeable. To become homosexual-affirming because someone you love announces he or she is homosexual is the antithesis of “tough love.” It’s like telling a loved one who is has a drug problem: “I love you so much that I’m going to send you a five ounces of cocaine every month, because that’s how much I care.”



How should conservatives and Republicans respond to the tidal wave of misinformation and the largely liberal and libertarian campaign to normalize homosexual perversion? Certainly not by trying to “out-gay” the Democrats on the issue — which will never happen anyway. If the time-honored Judeo-Christian marital ethic is not worth “conserving,” what is? Shame on any “conservative” who buys into the radically egalitarian proposition that all relationships “equally” deserve marriage, and that civil rights laws should be twisted to accommodate those practicing deviant sex and gender confusion.

Moreover, both conservatives and self-styled libertarians should be outraged at the threat to liberty posed by “Big Gay Government.” Even before homosexual “marriage” emerged as the main battlefront in this debate, “sexual orientation” laws were the Left’s tool of choice to force Christians and moral-minded institutions like the Boy Scouts of America to affirm homosexuality. (The Boy Scouts went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the right to operate by their own “morally straight” code, but “gay” activist pressure against them never let up and now the BSA is on the verge of overturning the policy.) Where is the outcry from libertarians and freedom-loving conservatives at the threat to citizens’ freedom of conscience and association posed by pro-LGBT laws — which, ironically, discriiminate [sic] against traditionalists in the name of “nondiscrimination”?



American conservatism cannot divorce itself from Christianity and biblical revelation; in fact, it is wrapped up in the defense of Judeo-Christian mores. Yes, conservatives and Christians alike will be vilified by homosexual activists if they criticize “gay marriage” or any aspect of the LGBT agenda. But what kind of conservative or Christian turns tail after getting flack for standing on principle? If ever there were a cultural tide to stand against it is the LGBT agenda and sexual immorality in general, for no nation can survive moral decay of the sort America is experiencing. (In that sense, we are not “exceptional.”)

Even if polls are semi-accurate in gauging cultural trends, bending to worldly falsehoods and irrational public policy is the stuff of humanists and moral relativists — not “conservatives” and certainly not biblical Christians who accept and defend absolute Truth (right versus wrong).

As for “gay conservatives,” beware of homosexuals like Tammy Bruce and GOProud, who sound and act much more like “gay” activists than conservatives whenever their special interest — justifying their own dysfunctional embrace of homosexuality — is involved.

As for the pro-homosexual ”Christian Left,” faithful believers must insist that homosexuality be treated like other sins in the Bible. (Have you ever heard of a “Porn-Users Pride Parade,” or been called an “adultery-phobe”?) Homosexuality is what you do, not who you are, and Jesus Christ has set many men and women free from this besetting sin. Hillary Clinton may be good at politics, but she blasphemes her Creator by using His Holy name to support her faithless push for counterfeit “marriage” based on conduct that God Himself calls an abomination.

It is the height of folly to dumb down conservatism and jettison the wholesome dictates of the Bible and Christianity because the “Glee” Generation has a new idea about sodomy. Instead, principled conservatives need to fight back against politically correct shibboleths and bravely stay the course; defend transcendent Truth against modern, secularist lies; affirm marriage (one-man, one-woman) and virtuous morality for everyone; and return to reason and the biblical idealism of yesteryear.