Washington Times

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) became a chief target of Religious Right activists after she introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and end federal discrimination against married same-sex couples. In an email titled, “Getting Gay With Marriage,” Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition warns that President Obama, the Supreme Court and “left-wing radicals have declared open warfare against America’s families” by “trying to cram gay marriage through Congress”:

URGENT: Please forward this e-mail to as many friends as possible. Senate Democrats led by Dianne Feinstein are once again trying cram gay marriages through Congress! We need to deliver 50,000 signatures in the next 48 hours if we are to fight back against this reckless and liberal attack on marriage!

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee meets to do the unthinkable -- redefine marriage, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and overturn the will of the people in 41 states across the country.

In the next 48 hours, the anti-marriage left is trying to gather 50,000 signatures to deliver to the Senate to overturn DOMA.

…

Yet liberals in Washington have used every judicial tool they have to overturn the will of the American people!

Worse, liberals such as Barack Obama have done everything in their power to pack the courts with likeminded left-wing radicals such as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Make no mistake -- Obama and the left-wing radicals have declared open warfare against America’s families.

Liberty Counsel also called on the Senate to stop the Respect for Marriage Act, warning that the bill will “undermine marriage” and will wrongly reward “same-sex preferences”:

DOMA defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, which is the only way our federal government has viewed marriage. This law was enacted in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Natural marriage benefits our society by providing the ideal way to raise future generations, stable relationships, and health benefits that same-sex preferences do not. Government has the authority to reward and defend natural marriage because of the good it creates in our society.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said: I urge the Senators to vote against the repeal of DOMA. Thirty states have passed constitutional amends to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Senate has better things to do with the faltering economy than to undermine marriage. Liberty Counsel Action will be scoring the votes and will be informing the voters, and the voters will hold Senators accountable.”

Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America penned an op-ed in The Washington Times last week attacking the bill as a threat to the country’s “freedom and liberty”:

But despite what “We the people” want, liberal lawmakers will stop at nothing until they force their own values on the rest of the nation. That is why they introduced this bill and will continue to introduce it until they get it through. Perhaps they’ll hide it in a defense bill, as they did with the controversial “hate crimes” legislation. They’ll never let freedom and liberty get in the way of liberal ideology.

Americans should take note of every congressman supporting this bill, and they should let their voices be heard. Enough is enough. We need not take it.

If they want to respect something, they should respect “We the people.” How about that?

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber took to the Washington Times this morning to lay out yet another anti-gay screed. According to Barber, the future of the country will be determined over a conflict between the conservative movement’s patriotism and the left’s supposedly unpatriotic support for equal rights and the separation of church and state. Barber, who has argued that liberalism is the “hatred for God” and that gay children commit suicide because they know homosexuality is “unnatural,” said that gay rights will bring about the country’s moral collapse as “the ‘gay pride’ parade leaves nothing behind but a huge mess for the rest of us to clean up”:

Indeed, the “gay pride” parade, perhaps more than any other, best encapsulates the values embraced by today’s secular-progressive left.

Think about it. It’s got it all:

c Obscenely expensive, taxpayer-funded actions-without-consequences gaiety.

c Celebration of a caution-to-the-wind, enjoy-now-pay-later lifestyle.

c Men who act like women and women who look like men.

c Flamboyant narcissism, moral relativism and plenty of gyrating nude bodies.

c Colorful public sex displays to forever confuse, desensitize and sexualize the kiddos. (Mustn’t forget: “Childhood events permanently impact beliefs and behavior.”)

c Lots of anti-Americanism.

c And a total absence of God.

Oh, and much like the homosexual lobby’s No. 1 cheerleader, President Barack “downgrade” Obama, the “gay pride” parade leaves nothing behind but a huge mess for the rest of us to clean up.

So which America do you live in? The one with public displays of patriotism or the one with public displays of perversion? The one with lots of flag-waving or the one with lots of, well, whatever waving?

As the Good Book says: “Pride cometh before the fall.”

We’re falling.

Can we get back up?

I don’t know, but for starters, we sure could use a lot less pride and a little more patriotism. More important, though, let’s take a lesson from those who came before us.

If we don’t turn back to God, our best days are done.

Did Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, marry disgraced New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to usher in an Islamic, socialist, Alinskyist plot to takeover America? So says conservative Washington Times blogger Eliana Benador, who posits (in an article since pulled from the website) that the power-hungry Abedin may have married Weiner to advance the “pro-Muslim political agenda” backed by President Obama, George Soros, and her close friends Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose actions “signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.” But their nefarious plans could be ruined by the congressman’s recent scandal.

Benador believes that Weiner may have even converted to Islam to marry Abedin, noting that no one can trust anything they say anyway because “an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.” Good thing that Benador is asking the question everyone’s been thinking, “has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?”

Congressman Weiner‘s indiscretions, however, might end up inconveniencing the present Administration’s plans. “How?” you might ask.

The clues may be found in the marriage of Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim, and Anthony Weiner, a Jew.

…

When looking broadly at the Anthony Weiner–Huma Abedin union, we have to wonder if the coupling of a Jewish American man and a Muslim woman of her pedigree was fostered by love or by a socialist political agenda.

…

Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy, who is considered “the founder of modern Community Organizing.” From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.

Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? It’s noteworthy that Time Magazine listed Huma Abedin in its “40 under 40” list of the new generation of civic leaders and “rising stars in American politics.” That certainly puts her in a position to move the Alinsky-group agenda forward.

The Imam of New York has stated: “I would tell her [Huma] to be a little bit patient. In our book, if you think your wife, or husband, is doing something unacceptable, you start by counseling her.”

Counseling? For whom, Huma or Anthony? The Imam’s statement seems to state that Huma is in need.

Regardless, those are words of compromise offered by a leading Muslim Imam trying to make us forget that the Koran actually advocates stoning wives for adultery while turning a blind eye toward the sexual mis-deeds of the husband.

It is also important, when looking at this situation, to remember that observant Muslims practice Taqiyya , an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.

Given the defense articulated by the Imam, which would be offered only for a Muslim man, we must believe this opportunity to remove this Muslim woman from a union with an non-believer would be quickly taken. Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.

However, we should also bear in mind that any who are Jewish by orthodox standards will always remain Jewish, even if they have converted to another faith. This may explain rumors that Mr. Weiner went to his synagogue looking for moral support.

The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?

If that is so, Anthony Weiner may be proven to be the weak link in a pro-Muslim political agenda.

And the final test of that may be in Huma Abedin’s reactions to her husband’s lack of moral principals.

Update (2:01) the article has now been pulled from The Washington Times website.

Because the Right has very little ammunition against Elena Kagan heading into her confirmation hearings next week, they have been desperately trying to make up "controversies" that they can try to use against her.

Which is why a donation made by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal to Harvard University to establish an Islamic Studies program at the time that Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School has been transformed into a right-wing claim that Kagan supports Sharia Law and "the enemy" while hating our troops. 

So I guess it was only a matter of time until we started seeing things like this in Frank Gaffney's column in The Washington Times:

Hats off to Sen. Jeff Sessions. The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has opened up an important new front in the debate over Solicitor General Elena Kagan's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court: her attitude toward the repressive legal code authoritative Islam calls Shariah and her enabling of efforts to insinuate it into this country.

By so doing, the Alabama legislator has given his colleagues and the country an opportunity not only to flesh out and evaluate the thin public record of President Obama's second nominee to a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court but also afforded us all what Mr. Obama might call a "teachable moment."

Specifically, this Supreme Court nomination offers a prism for examining the concerted and ominous campaign under way to bring Shariah to America, thanks to the troubling role Ms. Kagan played during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School.