Brian Tashman's blog

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.

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.”

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:

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.

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.

Swanson: Gay Leaders Make Colorado 'Worse than the North Korean Government'

Pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are no strangers to making extreme and disturbing anti-gay statements on their show Generations Radio, so it comes as no surprise that they did not exactly react well to Colorado’s passage of a civil unions bill and a Denver Post photograph of State House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino kissing his partner.

Swanson compared Ferrandino and his partner to Ahab, the Baal worshiping king in the Bible who was married to Jezebel, and Nero, the Roman emperor who persecuted Christians, and maintained they are “showing the big middle finger to God above.”

Indeed, he said that the “Colorado government is the worst in the world” and “probably even worse than the North Korean government.”

Buehner agreed and argued that the photograph should be labeled “Capital Crime,” implying that the kiss is a crime punishable by death.

Swanson: Colorado’s become probably the worst state in the union right now and I happen to be broadcasting from the state of Colorado. The front page of the Denver Post yesterday morning gave us a picture of our leaders that is the House Majority Leader in Colorado who is celebrating and dancing on the gravestone of the old Christian order of the last 2,000 years because they have won and God is dead as far as they are concerned. We have the House Majority Leader, and by the way 10 percent of the House and Senate in Colorado are homosexuals, and Dave they are performing a homosexual act on the front page of the Denver Post, meaning that the Denver government as far as I’m concerned is probably the most immoral government, flagrantly thwarting the government of God in Heaven, and they are doing it far worse than anybody in Communist China government has ever done, probably worse than the North Korean government as well.

I would say at this point in the history of America, Colorado government is the worst in the world as far as flagrantly thwarting God’s law on the front page of the Denver Post. Dave, a homosexual act being performed in this picture on the front page of the Denver Post, just shocking, I saw you turn your head, you took one look and turned your head, you didn’t want to look at it, I’m going to turn it over.

Buehner: The headline should read ‘Capital Crime.’ A little pun intended there because it is a capital crime.

Swanson: These are our leaders. This is Ahab. This is Nero. Well, Nero did effectively the same thing, he was doing the same thing and of course he persecuted Christians, which is what happens, so not completely unusual in the history of the world. But Dave we’re talking about the apostate Christian West and showing the big middle finger to God above and thwarting his law. This is about as blatant as I’ve ever seen in my life; this is the most blatant thing I’ve seen in my life.

Buehner: This is brazen, what San Francisco has done on the city level, Colorado is now doing on the state level.

Buehner said that the story points to the “demise of Western civilization” and should have “never be brought to public life,” and Swanson said that gays and lesbians are embarking on a “mass propaganda campaign and they’re going to put Christians in prison.” Buehner added that “these people are intent on defying; giving the middle finger to the God who is…this is the anti-God religion.”

Swanson was later adamant that conservatives need to “bring down the socialist schools” and “dismantle the public schools” in order to stop the left and the gay rights movement before they “destroy our freedoms.”

The pastors later defended the Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller, who was recently convicted for aiding Lisa Miller (no relation) in kidnapping her daughter Isabella to avoid a court order that gave Miller’s former partner Janet Jenkins custody over Isabella. Buehner even compared the kidnapping case to helping someone leave a concentration camp.

Swanson: Now Dave I just wrote a letter to this guy in care of the Amish Mennonite church in Stuarts Draft, Virginia. I have no idea who this guy is, I understand he is being persecuted for his faith and he took a righteous position. He tried to as a leader in his church develop a righteous position, what position should he take, on this particular case and it did not happen to coalesce with the United States government’s position that would render as many possible liberties and freedoms to those that violate God’s law as possible. So this man I believe took a righteous position and it was a difficult position, probably a very difficult position, it would have taken a lot of wisdom and a lot of thought — should he do this, should he do that — and he wound up taking I think a righteous position on this issue and he is being persecuted for his pains, serving three years in a jail in Virginia. At least two pastors right now in America are being persecuted, nothing in comparison to what’s happening in places like Iran, however.

Buehner: I would like to say that this Mennonite pastor did pretty much follow the path set out by Rutherford: you want to fight the case as much as you can in court and when you lose there then you flee. And they fled and he helped them to flee. If somebody wanted to leave the public schools I would help them leave the public schools; if somebody wanted to leave a concentration camp and I was in Nazi Germany I would try and help them to leave the concentration camp. I believe, and I believe this pastor also believes, that this mother and child were in deep, grave moral danger and perhaps even physical danger and their opportunity to practice the Christian faith was compromised in America so I stand with him.

NOM March Sponsor Defends Criminalization of Homosexuality

The National Organization for Marriage’s upcoming Marriage March in Washington DC is sponsored by a whole litany of national and state-based Religious Right organizations and Catholic Church affiliates, and Jeremy Hooper has been doing an excellent job running down the list.

One notable sponsor of NOM’s march is Family Watch International (FWI), a group that defends the criminalization of homosexuality.

Other NOM march sponsors like the World Congress of Families and the Family Research Council have also defended such anti-gay laws, but as Warren Throckmorton reports FWI has been particularly active in pushing criminalization policies abroad.

Sharon Slater, American anti-gay activist and president of Family Watch International, recently encouraged delegates attending a law conference in Lagos, Nigeria to resist the United Nations’ calls to decriminalize homosexuality. Keynoting the Nigerian Bar Association Conference, Slater told delegates that they would lose their religious and parental rights if they supported “fictitious sexual rights.” One such “fictitious right” is the right to engage in same-sex sexual relationships without going to jail.



In Nigeria, homosexual behavior is illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. In the Islamic North, where Sharia law is enforced, gays can be sentenced to death by stoning.

According to Family Watch International, Nigeria is a role model.



Given the application of U.S. ex-gay rhetoric to questions of criminalization in Africa, it appears that FWI and their ally the WCF are fighting ideological battles in Africa and at the UN that they have lost in the United States. As Slater noted, she opposed the repeal of sodomy laws over a decade ago and now these organizations are opposing UN efforts to encourage repeal of such laws around the world.

Despite recoiling from obvious violence of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality bill, FWI continues to carry the banner for African and Arab nations that cause GLBT people to live in fear—and sometimes in jail. Opposing the repeal of laws criminalizing homosexual behavior in the U.S. is a far different matter than opposing such repeal in Nigeria or Ghana. Despite Slater saying the matter was “complicated,” the activities of FWI reveal a very uncomplicated, black-and-white strategy: laws opposing homosexuality in any form should be retained, while those which might provide basic freedoms to gays are opposed as bad for everybody else. The only caveat is that they prefer that gays not be beaten or killed.

Kerry Eleveld in the Political Research Associates report “Colonizing African Values” also looks into FWI’s promotion of ex-gay pseudo-science and FWI head Sharon Slater’s demand that homosexuality be treated like rape, assault, sexual abuse and drug dealing.

“It is one thing to allow others the right to engage in self-destructive behavior,” Slater warned in a 2009 article. “But allowing and even granting those same individuals the right to introduce this behavior as normal and healthy to society at large, especially to children, is a very different proposition. This is why we have laws that prohibit sexual acts such as incest, sexual abuse, and rape as well as drug dealing, assaults, and other crimes.”



This stance attracted the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which gave Slater a platform during its annual conference last year. As “scientific” organizations that used to employ discredited research in support of curing homosexuality continue to be marginalized, they seem to be reaching out to Christian Right figures such as Slater, and in return FWI’s website utilizes NARTH resources on ex-gay therapy.

Though Slater appears to have kept news of the most recent Global Family Policy Forum to a minimum, last year in a newsletter she recounted “one of the most moving presentations” as given by a person “successfully reorienting” from homosexuality to heterosexuality. According to Slater: “For many of these diplomats, this was their first exposure to the scientific and clinical evidence that proves homo- sexuality is not genetically determined and fixed like skin color or race and that in many cases, individuals who experience same-sex attraction can be helped by therapy.” (emphasis hers)

In order to curry favor with foreign diplomats and people from developing countries, Slater continually drives home themes of the West imposing its bankrupt and deleterious values on the rest of the world. FWI’s latest documentary, “Cultural Imperialism,” is described as a “hard-hitting exposé of how the U.S. and other Western governments and UN agencies are blackmailing developing nations to accept controversial sexual rights in the guise of fighting AIDS.”

Geller to Obama: Muhammad 'May Be Your Prophet But He's Not Mine'

Fresh from speaking at CPAC, Pamela Geller appeared yesterday on TruNews with End Times fanatic and anti-Obama conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles where she implied that President Obama may be a Muslim.

She said that Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly, where he explicitly opposed blasphemy laws, actually was supportive of blasphemy laws and especially took issue with Obama’s line that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Geller told Wiles that Obama needs to “chill” and that Muhammad “may be your prophet but he’s not mine.”

It was so deeply troubling and so disturbing when you had the President of the United States Barack Obama go before the UN after our embassies had been attacked and say ‘the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Well first of all he’s not my prophet, so chill President of the United States you speak to everybody. He may be your prophet but he’s not mine. And then to use the weight of the United States to say you know violating the blasphemy laws is not the future, I think is pretty scary stuff, pretty scary stuff. I don’t care how they package it in the media, taking a steaming pile of dung and putting it in a Tiffany blue box with a little white ribbon, it is still dung.

Just today in her WorldNetDaily column, Geller called Obama an “Islamophile” and an “anti-Semite” who is “attempting to render parts of Jerusalem judenrein.”

She also told Wiles that Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union and the host of CPAC, met with her to discuss her complaints that the conference is “enforcing the Sharia.” Geller said that while Cardenas may not be part of the alleged Islamist takeover of CPAC, ACU board members Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are “absolutely” allies of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Geller: Al Cardenas by the way did reach out to me, I must say this, called me a couple of times after the brouhaha and did take a meeting with me at CPAC and we’ll see what happens. You know I am not cynical; did he go on a charm offensive and mean nothing? I don’t know. Will he do something about CPAC and have more voices like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq? We’ll see.

Wiles: Is there a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood in all of this stuff going on with CPAC and Grover Norquist?

Geller: I think so via Norquist and Suhail Khan; that I can prove. I’m not saying that about Cardenas because clearly I have no proof and I won’t say things that I don’t know to be true.

Wiles: I understand but with Norquist is there a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Geller: Absolutely. I mean he is very tied in with the Muslim Brotherhood groups here: ICNA, ISNA, CAIR. These groups were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest Hamas funding trial in our nation’s history and they were all offshoots of Hamas groups here in America in the ’90s.

Geller even maintained that “the media is aligned with the jihad force” and “self-enforces the Sharia,” agreeing with Wiles’ belief that “the left is foolishly aiding the Islamic infiltration of America.”

Geller: The media is aligned with the jihad force; the media self-enforces the Sharia; they refuse to criticize or offend or insult Islam that is in accordance with the blasphemy laws under the Sharia. Now you may say, ‘Well do you think they are deliberately enforcing the laws of the Sharia? Do you think they are saying I’m going to be Sharia compliant?’ I don’t know what’s in their minds, I would say no, but it doesn’t make a difference to me whether you’re clueless or complicit if the outcome is the same.

Wiles: The left is foolishly aiding the Islamic infiltration of America because the left thinks that if they have this alliance they will break down and destroy the last vestiges of the old America.

Geller: Yes. Look, this is a pattern; it is a leftist pattern to align itself with the totalitarian ideology of the day.

Rick Wiles: 'The Man in the White House Is a Devil from Hell'

End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles of TruNews has found more “proof” to bolster his case that President Obama is a demon: The History Channel’s “The Bible” miniseries. Reacting to charges that the character depicting Satan looks similar to Obama, Wiles believes “God guided the hand of the makeup artist and blinded the eyes of everybody on the movie set while it was being recorded” so that they wouldn’t see the resemblance.

But then, Wiles claims, God “removed” the “spiritual blinders” once “the program was broadcast nationally on the History Channel.” He concludes that this is yet another “clue” from Heaven that “the man in the White House is a devil from Hell.”

As Mr. Obama prepares to enter Jerusalem this week, days before Passover, another massive swarm of locusts have entered southern Israel. Mr. Obama is not only facing a biblical plague of locust in the Middle East he is also being compared to Satan in the popular “The Bible” series on the History Channel. Sunday night’s latest chapter on the series featured Lucifer and viewers around the nation immediately thought Satan looked like Barack Obama. Mark Burnett, the creator of the miniseries, denied reports that that actor was made to look like Mr. Obama. His wife Roma Downey said “both Mark and I have nothing but respect and love for our President who is a fellow Christian.” Likewise, the History Channel denounced the internet and talk radio chatter that the Lucifer character resembles Mr. Obama, in a statement the TV network said it was “unfortunate that anybody made this false connection.”

Now here’s my take on it: I believe Mark Burnett and his wife and the History Channel. I don’t believe they intentionally portrayed the Lucifer character to look like Mr. Obama. I think God guided the hand of the makeup artist and blinded the eyes of everybody on the movie set while it was being recorded, and the spiritual blinders were removed Sunday night when the program was broadcast nationally on the History Channel. How many clues do we need from Heaven to understand that the man in the White House is a devil from Hell?

Sandy Rios Floats Rumor that Hillary Clinton Is a Lesbian

After wondering about UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s sexual orientation, American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios is now floating rumors that Hillary Clinton may be a lesbian following the former Secretary of State’s statement expressing support for marriage equality.

Citing Dick Morris, naturally, Rios speculated that Clinton may be a lesbian even though she “can’t confirm or deny anything.”

She added that Clinton has a “love of homosexuality” and consistently “endorsed and embraced all things lesbian and gay.” “We are being caught in this vortex of homosexual advocacy, it’s just amazing,” Rios concluded.

If you think that her support of lesbian and gay rights is something new, I’m sorry, she has repackaged herself so successfully but if you just do a little research on Hillary Clinton you know that her love of homosexuality goes back a very long way. I remember even when she was First Lady, that would be not the beginning of her support for this, but this would be one of the more notable things, on the UN Convention on the Rights of Women, she oversaw the whole thing, the Beijing conference. It was shocking. This was a shocking thing. I think it was in ’94 I remember interviewing women that I knew who came back from the conference and I have mentioned this on the air before but I have to mention it again, under Hillary’s leadership there were even tents on lesbian lovemaking, they we remaking sure that people defined gender there were five genders, not just two genders.

Hillary Clinton, there have long been rumors about her sexual persuasion; if you don’t know that you need to know that. I can’t confirm or deny anything; I just remember that Dick Morris was the first one to raise this publicly. He worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton for a number of years and he said on public television, I was shocked because I knew about the rumors, he actually alleged that Hillary was a — he was trying to make excuses for Bill Clinton when he was caught with Monica Lewinsky — and he basically said, I believe it was on Fox many years ago when that broke, basically hinted that Hillary was a lesbian.

All I can tell you there are rumors abound and I guess since it doesn’t matter anymore then it doesn’t matter anymore, does it? So if you think this is like a seismic shift for Hillary Clinton I can guarantee you this is not a seismic shift. She has always, as far as I know back to college, endorsed and embraced all things lesbian and gay, that is her history on this so that shouldn’t be too shocking. She has played the role of wife and cookie-making mother, I’m sorry but this is just the reality of things. We are being caught in this vortex of homosexual advocacy, it’s just amazing.
Syndicate content