Washington Times

Steve Deace Claims End Of Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws Led To 'Fascism'

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace writes in the Washington Times today that gay rights advocates are trying to instill a 1984-style “fascism,” and blames this development on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

“Every fascist movement in human history would be proud” of the gay rights movement, he writes, warning that the movement poses a greater threat to America than “jihadists” and is forcing Christians “debate our very existence” in the US.

After being desensitized to homosexuality by popular culture for the past two decades, the American people were promised by the Left that allowing the sexual revolution to reach its climax wouldn’t change anything. Now that our brave, new world of anything goes has arrived, the American people are beginning to realize this actually threatens to change everything.

Free speech, your own conscience, and religious freedom — rights as old as our republic itself — are now threatened more than ever before. Those God-given rights aren’t being threatened by jihadists or the Redcoats. They’re being threatened by a new fascism that calls itself “tolerance.”



Those who pleaded for “tolerance” and demanded “equality” only intended to do so until they acquired supremacy. Then, when they had the advantage, they would make sure their opponents understood that it’s not any fun once the rabbit has the gun. This reconstruction of previously agreed upon terminology and values is always the first step towards totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out in “Animal Farm” and “1984.”

A brief history lesson for those wondering how “tolerance” turned into fascism.

When sodomy laws were nullified by controversial Supreme Court precedents like 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us this was only about consenting adults’ private behavior, and this wouldn’t lead to a fight over marriage. But that’s exactly what it did.

While we were winning the fight to preserve marriage in 31 of the 35 states it was contested, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us that redefining marriage and granting new rights based on behavior wouldn’t cost anybody their previously acknowledged God-given rights.

But that’s exactly what it’s doing, as it was intended to do. Statists are cheering on the fascism because their ultimate goal has always been to silence the church in America, for it’s the church that preaches the sovereignty of God and not government.



Christians now find ourselves in the position of having to debate our very existence in a country that wouldn’t have existed without our Christian forefathers, who came here for religious freedom in the first place. Can we hold jobs and still believe the Bible and church teachings? Can we own businesses? Will we be blacklisted from certain industries? Will they try to stop us from passing these teachings down to our children at home, since they’re already indoctrinating our kids against us in the schools as it is? And so on, and so forth.



The new tolerance has become the new fascism. How fabulous.

Owens: Holder 'Shredded' The Constitution 'In Order To Impose A Radical Homosexual Agenda'

Anti-gay activist William Owens is pushing for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for “trampling the rule of law” by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.”

Holder recently said that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend discriminatory laws such as marriage bans that they deem unconstitutional.

Writing today for the Washington Times, Owens says that Holder effectively “shredded” the Constitution and that the attorney general and President Obama have turned “their backs on the black community” by supporting marriage equality.

Mr. Holder could have physically shredded a copy of the U.S. Constitution at the podium that evening, and it would not have been a more eloquent statement of how far he and the president are willing to go in order to impose a radical homosexual agenda to redefine marriage on our entire nation.



I am ashamed of Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder for turning their backs on the black community and the values that we hold dear — values we want strengthened and promoted rather than weakened and undermined. The ongoing progress of civil rights rightly calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture. Instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children.

However, the problem is not merely that the president and his administration — in particular, Mr. Holder — are promoting this radical agenda. The problem is that they are trampling the rule of law in order to do it. When the top law enforcement officer in the nation runs roughshod over the rule of law, that problem cannot be ignored.

That is why I am calling for the attorney general to be impeached and to be held accountable for his abandonment of the oath he swore in taking office.

The Coalition of African American Pastors, which I represent, is asking for 1 million signatures on a petition urging Congress to take action against Mr. Holder for his reckless disregard of the laws that bind our social fabric together, and for his attacks upon the institution of marriage, which forms the very foundation of our society.

Washington Times Columnist: Immigration Reform Is 'Actually Racist'

Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt has a new theory that support for immigration reform is the position “that’s actually racist.”

In a column Tuesday, Hurt accused Democrats of staging a “deviously racist” “brown-face minstrel show routine” when it comes to immigration reform, because, he says, Democrats want “millions more” to “become addicted to the pitiful, slow-drip government teat” and turn into “another plantation of impoverished, enslaved voters”:

When Democrats “fight” for illegals, they talk about wanting to grant them amnesty for their crimes, welfare for not working and free health care. This way, Democrats presume, millions more will become addicted to the pitiful, slow-drip government teat and the party will enjoy another plantation of impoverished, enslaved voters for decades to come.

If Republicans are smart and genuinely serious about addressing the scourge of illegal immigration, they will reject these Democratic assumptions that illegals are intent on nothing more than being lazy deadbeat scofflaws and denounce Democrats for such a deviously racist portrayal.

Hurt elaborated on his argument in an interview with Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg yesterday, in which he insisted that “the Democratic position is the one that’s actually racist because they keep pandering to immigrants and illegal immigrants and say the only thing they care about is being granted amnesty for their crimes and being given welfare and being given free medical care.”

He claimed that Democrats think that "all these illegals...aspire to do is be sort of deadbeat criminals."

“The truth of the matter,” Hurt said, is that undocumented immigrants are “looking to work” and to be “lawful citizens.”

Hurt seems to have missed that the whole point of immigration reform is to allow undocumented immigrants to work and become lawful citizens.

Knight: America Becoming 'World's Great Satan' & 'Nuclear Waste Dump' Thanks To Gay Rights

Conservative columnist Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union is offended that “our Muslim enemies falsely describe” America as the “world’s Great Satan,” but he agrees that we are certainly on our way to becoming just that. “We might consider asking our ruling elites in Hollywood, New York and Washington to give the mullahs less evidence for that claim,” he writes in the Washington Times.

The ACRU senior fellow alleges that America’s “ever-coarsening, ‘progressive’ popular culture and the ruling elites” are using gay rights and immigrant rights to turn the country into a “nuclear waste dump.”

The trouble with liberals is not just that they eventually run out of other people’s money, as Margaret Thatcher observed. It’s that they find new ways every day to project their own dysfunctional worldview on the rest of us.

It’s like living next door to a nuclear-waste dump run by the Bumpusses. You’d like to ignore it, but shards of spent fuel keep falling into your yard and setting your dog on fire. This is how non-progressive Americans increasingly view our ever-coarsening, “progressive” popular culture and the ruling elites who promote it.

They’re aghast at not only the moral meltdown, but the rise of dictatorial executive power in Washington, as explained to us by the president in his State of the Union address, in which he reduced Congress to a helpmate at best.



The worst sin of all in the age of iron-fisted, liberal “tolerance” is to react to moral degradation by failing to facilitate it. If you get caught in a nonfestive mood, like the Christian bakery owners and wedding photographers who think the First Amendment protects their right not to be forced to celebrate sin, you are in legal jeopardy.

Coming to your state, unless you live in Jerry Brown’s California or Chris Christie’s New Jersey, which already have this abomination, is a law that says right is wrong and that wrong is mandatory.

California’s statute, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last week, denies the right of parents to take children to licensed therapists to deal with unwanted same-sex desires.

Parents are allowed only to enlist therapists who counsel children to be “gay.” This is America, land of the free?



In such a culture, it’s easy for the president and his media allies to stoke the fires of envy and spread more dependency. It works even better when the people are stoned.

Having softened us up with cultural rot, the left is driving for total political control, with little effective opposition.

Failing to hold the administration accountable for a multitude of scandals, the Republican leadership is now trying to figure out how to raise the national debt and to turn 11 million undocumented Democrats into voters.



Vladimir Putin may be exploiting our moral decline for his own purposes, but to many weary Americans, his remarks ring true.

We are not yet the world’s Great Satan, as our militant Muslim enemies falsely describe us, but we might consider asking our ruling elites in Hollywood, New York and Washington to give the mullahs less evidence for that claim.

Kuhner Cites Dubious New York Post Article To Call Obama's Re-Election 'Illegitimate'

Conservative commentators have pounced on a fishy New York Post article this week which claimed that the US Census faked jobs data to help President Obama’s re-election chances. Among the major flaws in the Post’s report was that the Census worker whom the paper suggests fabricated the pre-election unemployment report left the Census Bureau in August, 2011.

But Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner took the Post’s dubious story as confirmation of earlier right-wing predictions that Obama “deliberately manipulated” Census data to aid his campaign, and therefore his re-election was “illegitimate.”

“Mr. Obama’s regime is imploding,” Kuhner writes today. “It is only because the U.S. system has fixed, four-year presidential terms that he is still in office.”

Did President Obama win re-election on false terms? This is the question that must be answered in the wake of a recent bombshell story in The New York Post.

The Post’s John Crudele revealed that in the final months prior to the 2012 presidential election, the U.S. Census Bureau released fabricated data. In particular, in September 2012, the Census Bureau astonishingly claimed that the unemployment rate had dropped in one month from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. I — along with many others — said that the number was not only bogus, but had been deliberately manipulated to help Mr. Obama achieve a second term. I was right.



The president’s entire re-election was based on a pack of lies. If the electorate knew the true, destructive nature of the administration, Mr. Obama might never have won. His regime transformed the Internal Revenue Service into a political weapon to intimidate and harass opponents, preventing groups from organizing against him in 2012. On Benghazi, the president and his allies deliberately misled the public to cover up the terrorist killings of four Americans — including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. They did this while claiming al Qaeda had been smashed and defeated. Instead, the Islamist network was on the march. Mr. Obama’s surveillance state, using the National Security Agency to spy on millions of fellow citizens, was kept in the shadows.

Finally, the president’s central promise regarding Obamacare — that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it — turns out not only to have been false, but Mr. Obama knew it was false. The Obamacare regulations compelling millions to change insurance were written into the law years before the 2012 election. In short, he repeatedly, consistently and knowingly lied.

This raises the question: If Mr. Obama’s entire re-election was based on fraudulent promises and deliberate mendacity, then was his victory illegitimate? If Americans knew then what they know now — the Obamacare debacle, the moribund economy, the terrorist assault on Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the growth of a soft police state — the president would have lost and lost big.

Mr. Obama’s regime is imploding. It is only because the U.S. system has fixed, four-year presidential terms that he is still in office. Under a parliamentary system, such as that of Britain or Canada, Mr. Obama would either have been forced to call an early election (and be defeated) or face an internal leadership challenge and be driven from power. Instead, he has been reduced to a permanent lame duck. The liberal savior has finally been unmasked.

Washington Times' Owens: Sexual Harassment Targets Acting Like 'Fragile Flowers'

Conservative columnist Mackbuin Thomas Owens writes in a Washington Times column published yesterday that women’s rights advocates are waging a “feminist attack on military culture” with their “recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.”

“The charge of rampant sexual assault is only the latest campaign in a war on military culture,” he writes.

Owens claims that the figures on sexual assault in the military must be inflated because of a discrepancy between the number of people who said in an anonymous survey that they faced harassment and the number of official reports of harassment – a disparity that’s easily explained by the fact that many cases of harassment go unreported. He even claims that efforts to curb sexual harassment represent “the de facto criminalization of normal relations between the sexes of the sort that come about when young males and females are thrown into proximity.”

Essentially, Owens argues that feminists who believe women shouldn’t face discrimination in the military or sexual harassment are somehow hypocritical: “Are women ‘hear me roar’ Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from ‘sexual harassment,’ encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?”

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.

Let me be clear: There is absolutely no excuse for sexual assault. Period. There is no excuse for a superior who pressures a subordinate for sexual favors. Period. The data cited by the Pentagon creating widespread panic within the military are rendered suspect for two reasons. The first problem is methodological: The numbers — some 26,000 active-duty service members out of a population of 1.4 million claim to have been sexually assaulted in 2012 — are based on an anonymous survey. This number far exceeds reported cases of sexual assault.

The second and more significant problem is that the survey uses the term “sexual assault” in a way so broad as to render it nearly meaningless. Indeed, much of what is now covered by the Pentagon’s sexual-assault rubric represents the de facto criminalization of normal relations between the sexes of the sort that come about when young males and females are thrown into proximity.

Kuhner: Polling That Shows GOP At Record Lows Proves GOP Is Winning

Conservative columnist Jeffrey Kuhner claims that polling showing the GOP’s popularity dropping to record lows is proof that Republicans are winning the government shutdown fight. Writing for the Washington Times today, Kuhner said that the disastrous polling numbers are all part of a big plan to “win the Obamacare war.”

How?

The Tea Party, of course!

He claims that even though most Americans oppose of the GOP’s attempt to link Obamacare funding to the shutdown, Kuhner says that most Americas actually love Republican anti-Obamacare zeal and the Tea Party.

However, the Tea Party has just a 21 percent approval rating, a poorer showing than even the GOP’s historically low 24 percent.

“The Tea Party represents the rebirth of Reagan conservatism, and the last time the GOP embraced Reaganism, they won consecutive landslide elections,” Kuhner writes. “The Republican moment is approaching.”

Republicans are on the verge of again becoming the majority party. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP is taking the brunt of the public blame for the partial government shutdown. In the short term, that is true. In the long term, however, the Republicans are on the verge of a major triumph. They will lose the shutdown battle, but win the Obamacare war.

By confronting President Obama on defunding or delaying his signature health care law, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives finally made a stand. Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are in no rush to end the government shutdown. The reason is obvious: They want to prolong the pain, thereby hoping to direct public anger against the House Republicans. The liberal elite media have peddled the narrative that the Tea Party is responsible for the shutdown. Democrats have resorted to calling Republicans every name in the book — terrorists, anarchists, suicide-bombers and right-wing extremists. The only thing they haven’t called Tea Party conservatives — yet — are Satanists.



For Democrats, Obamacare is the blunder of a generation. It is their law; they own it — lock, stock and barrel. There is a fierce battle against it because of deep popular opposition. Mr. Obama is paying the price for ramming the law down the throats of Congress and the American people. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — every prior major modern entitlement program has had substantial bipartisan support. This was done to ensure a level of political consensus and social stability when implementing sweeping change.

Obamacare, however, was different. It was passed without a single GOP vote. Every Republican idea — purchasing insurance across state lines, the need for tort reform, stripping out the death panels, abolishing taxpayer funding of abortions and contraception, and eliminating the punishing tax on medical devices — was rejected. It was Obamacare that spawned the birth of the Tea Party.

Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul represents liberalism’s fatal overreach. Most Americans despise it, and the more they find out about Obamacare, the more they hate it. It is a significant reason why the president’s job approval has sunk to 37 percent — and will continue to plummet. The most enduring memory the electorate will have is of Republicans shutting down the government in order to thwart the oncoming disaster. The GOP is being rebranded right in front of our eyes. They are standing as the defenders of small government, fiscal sanity and individual freedom. The Tea Party represents the rebirth of Reagan conservatism, and the last time the GOP embraced Reaganism, they won consecutive landslide elections.

The Republican moment is approaching.

Knight: State Should Remove Transgender Child From Home, Charge Parents With Abuse

Washington Times columnist Robert Knight wants the government to remove a transgender child from her parents and charge her parents “with endangerment, abuse and whatever else the authorities can find to deter such criminal insanity.”

Knight is referring to Tammy Lobel, the adopted daughter of a lesbian couple. Tammy, born Thomas, is on hormone blockers to delay puberty and her parents support her decision to live as a girl.

Knight claims that the parents’ support for their “acquired” daughter represents “child abuse,” and said that the only “civilized response to this news is to rescue the boy, revoke the adoption” and prosecute the parents.

According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry child’s gender identity, despite Knight’s suggestion, is not related to whether they are raised by opposite or same-sex parents. As Zack Ford at Think Progress notes, “Children understand gender by the age of 2, including their own, and Tammy was indicating she was a girl by age 3 and threatening to mutilate her own genitals at age 7,” and Tammy’s disposition and personality significantly improved after she began her transition.

Meanwhile, a bizarre child-abuse case is unfolding in California that the media are ignoring. State authorities should have stepped in long ago to stop the abuse — except that they apparently approve of it. After all, the parents are the perps.

Here’s what’s happening.

Two lesbians in Berkeley are turning their adopted 11-year-old boy into a girl. Seriously. The lad, who they acquired at age 2, is being given drugs via an implant on his left arm to block his puberty. The next step would be a surgery that will mutilate him forever. It’s supposed to be fine because the boy, Thomas, has bought into the idea. The two women say that the drug scheme will give the boy, now named Tammy, more time to think it over.

And we’re supposed to be OK with this?

Children cannot give meaningful consent to such an earth-shattering decision, which is why adults must protect them from their own folly. We must also protect them from child abuse, no matter the source.

The civilized response to this news is to rescue the boy, revoke the adoption and charge the women with endangerment, abuse and whatever else the authorities can find to deter such criminal insanity. The next step would be to take a hard look at an adoption process that allows such horrors to be committed and even encourages them.

Where are the adults? Where are the liberals who so often skate over legitimate parental rights in their quest to use government force to dictate child rearing?

Kuhner: Liberalism Killing Millions; Will Destroy Family, Religion And Civilization

Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner today reiterated his call for anti-Obama civil disobedience, warning that President Obama is pushing an agenda of “Christophobia” that seeks “the destruction of the family, Christian culture” and “Christian civilization” through abortion rights, same-sex marriage and secular government.

Kuhner’s entire column relies on the myth that Obamacare funds abortion and will make all Americans “pay for the abortionist’s knife” and “have the blood of innocent children on their hands.”

“It is genocide masquerading as ‘choice,’” Kuhner writes. “Liberalism is responsible for more deaths than Nazism or Soviet communism.”

Christians need to engage in peaceful civil disobedience against President Obama’s signature health care law. The reason is simple and macabre: Obamacare enables U.S. taxpayer funds to pay for abortions for members of Congress and their staff. That’s right. Pro-life Christians will be forced to subsidize the slaughter of unborn children.



Devout Christians are obligated to oppose Obamacare — including those who champion social justice and universal health care. Christian teaching is crystal clear: The killing of innocent human life is wrong, a heinous transgression of one of God’s most sacred commandments. Abortion is murder; it is state-sanctioned infanticide. Obamacare is ensnaring Christians in its nefarious web, making them culpable in the killing of unborn babies. Their tax dollars will pay for the abortionist’s knife. Unwitting Christians will have the blood of innocent children on their hands.

This should come as no surprise. Progressivism is at war with traditional Christianity. Liberals seek to create a society without God. Their goal is personal liberation — the destruction of the family, Christian culture and all the other social bonds that act as bulwarks against radical individualism. Abortion clinics are liberalism’s Gulag Archipelago, death camps scattered across the landscape. For liberals, abortion is key to erecting a society without sexual consequences. If a pregnancy is unwanted, liquidate the baby. Secular progressives believe that nothing — including innocent human life — must stand in the way of the sexual revolution. It is genocide masquerading as “choice.”

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, more than 50 million unborn babies have been butchered. Hence, abortion has taken more lives than murderous dictators, such as Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Liberalism is responsible for more deaths than Nazism or Soviet communism.



Christians must wake up before it’s too late. There is a virulent prejudice still acceptable in America: Christophobia. For decades, liberal elites have sought to purge religion from the public square. Prayer has been banned from schools. The Ten Commandments have been taken down from courthouses. Same-sex “marriage” is becoming encoded in law, overturning marriage between a man and a woman as a sacred, unique institution. Pornography is rampant. The family is breaking down. Our culture is obsessed with sexual promiscuity and moral permissiveness. God and Christians are regularly mocked. Even in the military, Christians are now told to remain in the closet.

Enough is enough. America is a product of English and Christian civilization. Our Founding Fathers were Christian patriots, who understood that individual liberties stem from a higher power. The most important is the right to life. Christians must declare that their allegiance to their faith transcends that of the ideological, secular state. If Obamacare continues to insist that we subsidize abortion, then it’s time for Christians to march on the streets in peaceful opposition. Mr. Obama is not worth the loss of our souls.

Birther Washington Times Defends Cruz By Attacking Imaginary 'Liberal Birthers'

The Washington Times editorial board baselessly claims this week that “many liberals who not so long ago derided anyone who questioned President Obama’s American birth as a ‘birther’ are asking similar questions now about Mr. Cruz’s eligibility.” The paper fails to name any prominent liberals who have actually made this argument.

In yesterday’s editorial, subtitled “Now a new version of ‘birtherism’ settles on the left,” the Times echoes Sean Hannity’s attack on imaginary liberal questioners of the Canadian-born Cruz’s eligibility.

Of course, the whole story is ironic since the birther movement centers around a conspiracy theory — backed by a majority of Republicans — that Obama was born abroad, probably in Kenya, and is therefore not eligible to be president even though his mother was an American citizen. Since Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, birthers are now quickly trying to backtrack.

The Washington Times editorial defending Cruz is especially ironic since one of the conservative newspaper’s top columnists, Jeffrey Kuhner, wrote a 2011 column arguing that Obama was not born in the US and is consequently an illegitimate president:

If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media’s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well.

Moreover, it would spark a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is absolutely clear that to be president one has to be a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, every major initiative implemented during the Obama administration - the health care overhaul, the massive stimulus package, the government takeovers of the auto companies, big banks and insurance firms, the sweeping anti-carbon regulations, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, the nearly unprecedented expansion of state power, the new START Treaty - would be invalid and possibly illegal. It would drive a stake through the heart of Mr. Obama’s regime, triggering impeachment and his removal from office. This is why liberals ferociously insist that the birth issue must be buried at almost any cost.



The birth issue is slowly casting a shadow over Mr. Obama’s presidency; it threatens to undermine public confidence in his legal and moral authority to govern. Several states are pushing to pass laws compelling future presidential candidates - including Mr. Obama - to fully disclose all documents proving their natural born citizenship status. This desire for greater political transparency and accountability is healthy.

It is time Mr. Obama came clean. At a minimum, if he does not reveal his birth certificate, he cannot - and should not - be allowed to run for a second term.

Knight: Obama Acting Like Soviet Commissar While Agreeing With Me On First Amendment Case

American Civil Rights Union fellow Robert Knight has a column in the Washington Times today blasting President Obama and the American Civil Liberties Union for acting like Soviet commissar trying to extinguish religious liberty. Knight cites an upcoming Supreme Court case surrounding the town of Greece, New York, in which two non-Christian residents sued the town for exclusively inviting Christian pastors to open council meetings in prayer. The residents claimed that the town violated the establishment clause and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

But that is an interesting case for Knight to pick as proof that Obama is undermining the freedom of religion, since the Obama administration actually sided with the town of Greece.

Ever feel like an “outsider?”

If you have, then you have license to stamp out any public activity that you find religiously offensive.

That’s the claim advanced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups that have taken a chain saw to the First Amendment. They intend to establish secularist sentiment as the only acceptable public expression.

Like the Soviet Union’s commissars and President Obama, they support “the freedom to worship,” a cramped view of religious freedom that protects essentially nothing. You can do what you want behind closed doors or inside your head. God help you, though, if you want to have an active faith and exercise your constitutional freedom outside those doors. Since before America’s founding, public meetings have opened with prayer. Usually, atheists or people of other faiths who find the mostly Christian prayers meaningless shrug and get on with business.

Increasingly, professional pests like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are using lawsuits to stamp out freedom of religion.

A key case at the U.S. Supreme Court may help sort things out. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the town council of the upstate New York town contends that prayers before meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause. They note that George Washington prayed in public and that Congress opens with prayer.



No, the unraveling of a civilization takes time, even when it’s proceeding at blinding speed, aided by government coercion.

Abbott: Obama Administration Voter Protection Violating Rights of Latino Republicans

Texas Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott claims the Obama administration’s lawsuit against a redistricting plan, which a federal court unanimously ruled was designed to deliberately discriminate against Latino voters, is proof that the administration is actually discriminating against Latino Republicans.

With new legal battles heating up between the Justice Department and Texas over redistricting and voter ID laws, Abbott has taken to the Washington Times to argue that the Obama administration seeks to violate “the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives” who are Republicans. “The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters,” Abbott writes.

While around 1.4 million Texans lack voter ID, Abbott claims that “crying ‘voter suppression’ is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws,” adding that “the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points.”

In redistricting, the Obama administration has aligned itself with Democratic state representatives and Democratic members of Congress who already are suing Texas. It is no surprise then that the legal position of President Obama’s attorneys seeks to improve Democratic candidates’ prospects. Of course, Mr. Obama’s attorneys conceal this partisan agenda with lofty rhetoric about minority voting rights. But it is no coincidence that every change to district lines supported by the administration benefits Democrats. Behind the empty allegations of racial discrimination lies one goal — helping Democrats in 2014.

The president’s partisan use of the Voting Rights Act actually hurts many minority voters in Texas. With the administration’s support, redistricting litigation already has unseated Texas state Reps. Jose Aliseda, Raul Torres, Aaron Pena and John Garza, as well as U.S. Rep. Quico Canseco. These representatives — all Republicans — won in 2010 in predominantly Hispanic districts. In 2011, however, the Obama administration and other partisan interest groups succeeded in getting a court to draw district lines so that only a Democrat could win these seats. As a direct result, all of these Republican Hispanic representatives lost their seats in 2012 except for Mr. Aliseda, who chose not to run for re-election. His district had been dismantled altogether at Democrats request.

The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters. Democrats could never “turn Texas blue” if that trend continued, so they got the courts to draw district lines that guarantee Democratic victory in predominantly Hispanic areas. What about the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives such as Mr. Aliseda, you might ask? They apparently don’t matter to this administration.

Similarly, polling consistently shows that Hispanic Texans strongly support voter-ID requirements, another target of the administration’s litigious political strategy. Electoral fraud harms voters of all races, and voter ID is a simple, nondiscriminatory way to help stop it. Getting an ID is free of charge for any Texan who needs one. Voter-ID laws already have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Crying “voter suppression” is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws. The administration’s absurd claim that this common-sense fraud prevention device is actually a racist plot to prevent minorities from voting would be comical if it weren’t so depressing to see an American president stoop to that level.



After the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act still works. It just no longer imposes an onerous and costly preclearance requirement that disrupts the state-federal balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. Instead of allowing the Voting Rights Act to work in a way the Constitution allows, the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points. The president is using the legal system as a sword to wage partisan battles rather than a shield to protect voting rights. This overreaching action undermines the Voting Rights Act and the rule of law. Texas will not tolerate it. So far, neither will the Supreme Court.

Kuhner: 'Homosexual Agenda Is Cultural Marxism' and A War on 'Human Nature'

Jeffrey Kuhner, the very anti-gay Washington Times columnist, is out with yet another screed targeting gays and lesbians, this time charging that the “homosexual movement” is leading “a war on religion and, ultimately, human nature itself.”

After insisting that Lady Gaga insulted veterans by “defam[ing] the national anthem,” Kuhner asserts that “aggressively promiscuous” gays and lesbians seek to “indoctrinate the youth” with the goal of turning the US into “Sodom and Gomorrah.”

“The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism,” he writes. “Same-sex marriage is not just wrong. It goes against nature, morality and God.”

The homosexual movement is transforming America. A great cultural change has taken place. The homosexual lifestyle — once considered a moral abomination — is today not only accepted, but celebrated. The results are obvious and pernicious: The creation of a militant secular America bent on eradicating our Judeo-Christian heritage. It marks the final frontier of liberalism — a war on religion and, ultimately, human nature itself.

Recently, pop star Lady Gaga sang the national anthem at a Gay Pride event in New York City. Holding a rainbow flag, she blurted out: “O say does that star-spangled flag of pride yet wave,” and then substituted “land of the free, and the home of the gay.” She did more than defame the national anthem, insulting everyone who has ever fought or died for our country. Her words embodied America’s new MTV morality. The Stars and Stripes are out; the rainbow flag’s sexual permissiveness is in.

It is not only Lady Gaga. Our popular culture is inundated with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender agenda. Hollywood, television, academia, public schools, the arts, professional sports, many mainline churches, the media and the Democratic Party — all peddle the supposed virtues of “tolerance,” “diversity” and homosexual “marriage.”

Even “Sesame Street” is about to get in on the act. The latest cover on The New Yorker magazine depicts Bert and Ernie cuddling together on the couch. The puppets are watching members of the Supreme Court strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, thereby granting federal benefits to homosexual couples. The implication is clear: It’s time for Bert and Ernie to come out of the closet, and reveal their long-standing homosexual love affair. Leave aside that puppets aren’t real people. Hence, they can’t have sex. Why should 5-year-olds be confronted with such disturbing issues such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sodomy, which are grossly inappropriate for their age?

The reason is simple: The goal of secular progressives is to indoctrinate the youth. This is why public schools — even at the elementary level — are pushing the homosexual agenda. Same-sex “marriage” is not — and never has been — about expanding the benefits of marital unions. Most homosexuals, especially young males, are not interested in getting married. They are aggressively promiscuous. For many, a stable, monogamous relationship is the last thing on their minds. Rather, the purpose of same-sex marriage is to legitimate homosexual behavior, thereby making it morally acceptable and part of the social mainstream. In short, it’s about fostering a cultural revolution — one that overturns Judeo-Christian civilization.



The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism masquerading as “progress.” Its goal is to redefine the family into an appendage of the homosexual movement, seeking to transform men and women into interchangeable parts. Children don’t need two daddies or two mommies. They need a father and a mother. Same-sex marriage is not just wrong. It goes against nature, morality and God. That’s why — like every other attempt at social engineering — it is doomed to fail. The cultural wreckage, however, will be immense. America is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah.

Crouse: Gay Marriage Will Lead to the 'Imprisonment' of Christians

After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal.

Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to democracy.

“It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations,” Crouse writes about same-sex unions. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.”

Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.

In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”

The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.



The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.

Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.

Bauer: Anti-Gay Activists May Be Thrown in Jail Following DOMA Ruling

Gary Bauer is joining other anti-gay activists in warning that they should prepare to face jail time as a result of gay rights victories at the Supreme Court. In the Washington Times today, Bauer claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage will “find themselves in court” and religious people may soon be “fined or jailed” because of their views.

The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court.

How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?

A lot had to happen, and it’s not all the left’s fault. It took the breakdown of traditional marriage. It took churches deciding that they could accommodate the homosexual culture or ignore it altogether. It took businesses placing their bottom lines ahead of morality. It took politicians who assured voters on the campaign trail that they would protect marriage and then did nothing to keep their promises once they arrived in Washington.

As a society, we have lost the understanding of what marriage is and what the consequences will be if we redefine it. Nobody has the right to redefine marriage. Doing so ignores research that makes clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Nobody has the right to force children to grow up without the unique contributions that a mother and a father provide.

Not to be outdone, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily claims the Supreme Court may take away Christians’ right to vote:

Now where do we go from here?

What’s next?

It’s obvious, isn’t it?

The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.

We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.

So when does the persecution begin?

When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn’t that next?

If not, why not?

It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?

Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.

That’s how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.

Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin? I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.

As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else.

Knight: Satan Behind Gay Boy Scouts, Marriage Equality, Episcopal Church and Obamacare

Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union today penned an “if I were the devil” column, inspired by radio commentator Paul Harvey. As you probably already guessed, he claims Satan is pushing marriage equality to attack religious people, convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide” by including openly gay scouts and expanded healthcare access through Obamacare.

Knight, while writing for the Unification Church-tied Washington Times, called the Episcopal Church a “subsidiary” of the Devil and claimed the government is becoming a Satanic tool to “throttle freedom of speech, religion and association,” to use same-sex marriage to “unleash the power of the state against all those ‘religious’ folks” and convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide.”

If I were Beelzebub, I’d work to destroy Western civilization, because its chief religions, Christianity and Judaism, have a timeless book that reminds people of my existence. I’m most effective when unacknowledged.

To this end, I’m working to do away with institutions that are in the way of my goal of destroying humanity. These pesky confederations include churches, observant temples, private groups and governments that support so-called traditional values such as honor, fidelity in marriage, strong families, personal responsibility, civic pride, charity and patriotism.

When these things are compromised, I move on to the game board’s next square — economic freedom, which I cannot abide and which cannot thrive without the virtues imparted by those irritating groups just mentioned. For a look at one of my greatest successes, take a walk through what used to be Detroit.

Once free enterprise is broken to the saddle of the state, I can throttle freedom of speech, religion and association, using some of the giant corporations spawned in the unprecedented liberty created by America’s system of constitutional rights, including private property.

In fact, I used some of those firms just the other day to induce the Boy Scouts of America to commit suicide, one of my prized outcomes. Under corporate-donor pressure, the Scout leadership threw aside the common-sense rule preventing open expression of homosexuality. This pretty much did the trick in Canada. It may take a few years, but the Scouts in the United States are finished, believe me. If you like what you see in the inner cities among fatherless boys, you’ll thank me later.

...

In 1993, the Girl Scouts USA opened their leader ranks to lesbians and atheists and adopted a policy allowing girls to substitute “Allah” or “Buddha” or perhaps “Elvira” in the Girl Scout promise, “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country.” Most of the girls and their local leaders peddling cookies are blissfully unaware of such fundamental ferment at the top, and I’m determined to keep it that way. So keep this under your hat, will you?

Other projects going smoothly include weeding Christians out of the U.S. armed forces, concentrating ever more power in Washington, D.C., through Obamacare, expanding the Infernal Revenue Service (no, it’s not a typo), opening the floodgates of pornography even wider, and pushing for universal preschool to get the tykes away from bothersome parents sooner.

Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be finishing up perhaps my most important project since World War II: Using the Supreme Court to wreck the most vital, irreplaceable institution in society — marriage. If I can persuade one more justice that the Constitution harbors the “right” to abolish marriage through radical redefinition, I can unleash the power of the state against all those “religious” folks who cling to their, well, religion.

But not all of them.

One of my subsidiaries, the Episcopal Church USA, is doing marvelous work muddying up what the Bible clearly says is right and wrong. I’m thinking of upping their budget to purchase a new, improved smoke machine.

Religious Right Medical Groups Hail 'Spontaneous and Assisted Change' for LGBT Youth

Back in 2011, David Barton of WallBuilders claimed that public schools want to “force [children] to be homosexual” rather than “develop naturally.” He based his claims on a letter from the American College of Pediatricians, which he described as “the leading pediatric association in America.”

But the ACP is actually a tiny fringe group with little backing in the medical community. A WallBuilders spokesman apologized for the story…until Barton doubled down on the misinformation.

Today, the conservative Washington Times ran a “fair and balanced” article which cited the ACP to rebut claims by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the country’s principal pediatric organization and an opponent of homophobia and sexual orientation conversion therapy.

ACP’s Dr. Den Trumbull told the Washington Times that nearly all gay and lesbian youth through “spontenous and assisted change” will “return to heterosexual orientation.” Dr. Jerry Miller Jr. of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations concurred and added: “I do not think we should normalize these kinds of behaviors and orientations…we want our patients to thrive, and we just don’t think that is going to occur in that [LGBTQ] lifestyle,” which he compared to alcohol and drug abuse.

While the American Medical AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationNational Association of Social Workers and American Psychiatric Association agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics that ex-gay therapy is harmful and not effective, leave it to the Washington Times to cite two peripheral groups in order to prop up its anti-gay bias.

“Sexual-minority youth should not be considered abnormal,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said in its new materials on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youths, released Monday.



“That’s where we would disagree. Major, major disagreement,” said Dr. Den Trumbull, president of the American College of Pediatricians, which was formed in 2002 as an alternative to AAP over its policy on gay adoption.

Another group, Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA), says “homosexual behavior can be changed,” and children experiencing “gender-identity confusion” should receive therapy if needed, and be around “appropriate role models.”



As many as 25 percent of youths experience “transient or temporary same-sex attractions,” yet the number of gay adults is much lower — 2 percent to 3 percent of the population, he said.

“Spontaneous and assisted change is possible,” and if a teen’s sexual-orientation confusion is not encouraged or validated, in the vast majority of cases, he or she “will return to heterosexual orientation,” said Dr. Trumbull, who has a pediatrics practice in Alabama.

“It’s wrong for anyone to be bullied or mocked or stigmatized. At the same time — and I know this is heresy to the lesbian and gay community — I do not think we should normalize these kinds of behaviors and orientations,” said Dr. Jerry A. Miller Jr., a pediatrician in Augusta, Ga., who is chairman of the CMDA’s pediatric section

. Teens can get involved in so many risky behaviors, especially regarding drugs, alcohol and sex, said Dr. Miller. As caring physicians, “we want our patients to thrive, and we just don’t think that is going to occur in that [LGBTQ] lifestyle.”

Knight: Immigration Reform Will Lead to 'One-Party Rule and Socialism'

With Religious Right activists increasingly torn over the debate on immigration reform, American Civil Rights Union senior fellow and Washington Times columnist Robert Knight is warning Republicans of grave consequences if they support the bipartisan Senate bill.

He claims that offering a pathway to citizenship for “unregistered Democrats” means that the GOP will commit “political suicide”: “flooding America with millions more people who have no understanding of constitutional, limited government is a fast track to dependency, one-party rule and socialism.”

The bill would have to go to a House-Senate conference committee, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would almost certainly trash border enforcement and ensure mass amnesty for an estimated 11 million illegal aliens, also known as “unregistered Democrats.”



On immigration, the best thing the House could do right now is nothing. The immigration “crisis” did not emerge overnight, and it will take years to sort out. The United States needs a secure border and hard-working, legal immigrants, not anarchy. But Democrats and big-business Republicans are hoping to stampede the House GOP leadership into committing political suicide. Flooding America with millions more people who have no understanding of constitutional, limited government is a fast track to dependency, one-party rule and socialism.



The immigration gambit is part of an overall political game plan that has become strikingly obvious:

Print billions of dollars to keep Wall Street happy while the Main Street economy caves under the weight of thousands of new regulations and impending Obamacare taxes. Issue misleading reports about unemployment that seriously underestimate the number of people out of work.

Make as many people dependent on government as possible. Begin by adding millions of people to achieve a shocking 50 percent increase in food-stamp recipients.



Finally, rely on the media to pretend that the growing abuses of power in Washington, including the Benghazi, Libya, killings and cover-up, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, and the NSA’s massive personal-data grab, have nothing to do with “the most transparent administration in history.” These are the people we’re supposed to trust on immigration reform.

What’s that? The media are ticked that the Justice Department seized Associated Press reporters’ phone records and labeled Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator?

They’ll get over it. Or maybe they’ll start doing their job, such as reporting the real costs of illegal immigration.

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/10/13

  • Turns out the IRS manager who initiated the alleged targeting of conservative groups is a conservative Republican
  • Fox News’ coverage of the George Zimmerman trial is journalism at its worst
  • The Washington Times editorial board wants to revive the $500 bill and replace William McKinley with Ronald Reagan because “putting the Gipper on the $100 would require ‘the street’ to no longer conduct its business in ‘Benjamins,’ but deal out ‘Ronalds.’” 
  • Phyllis Schlafly claims Kelly Ayotte “betrayed every conservative who supported her” by backing the Senate’s immigration reform bill.” 
  • The virulently anti-Muslim group Concerned Women for America will now be fighting “increased anti-Israel sentiment within our government” as part of its mission. 
  • Charisma editor Steve Strang says gay rights threaten the freedoms of speech, religion and the press, and that the Obama administration has given the “homosexual agenda” the “red-carpet treatment.”
  • Southern Baptist Convention vice president Roger Oldham maintains the Boy Scouts “planted the seed of their eventual destruction” by including openly gay youth.
  • Linda Harvey believes “our children all deserve kindness and civility, and that can happen even if they are learning homosexuality is wrong.” 

Gaffney: Immigration Reform May Give Citizenship to Terrorists

Frank Gaffney took to the Washington Times today to warn Sen. Marco Rubio that if he continues to support the Senate immigration reform bill, then he will be effectively helping terrorists gain citizenship.

While Gaffney alleged that “illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the ‘path to citizenship,’” in reality, the flow of unauthorized immigrants is at historic lows.

He writes that Rubio is pushing the “undoing” of laws which “thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system.”

“As Mr. Rubio surely knows,” Gaffney continues, immigrants crossing the border include people “associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.” “Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay?”

Like Mr. Obama’s earlier amnesty initiative — the Dream Act — the Gang of Eight bill is already having the predictable effect: Illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the “path to citizenship.” As Mr. Rubio surely knows, a non-trivial percentage of those are dubbed OTMs — “other than Mexicans.” These include persons from what are euphemistically called “special-interest countries,” notably, Iran and other Islamist-ruled nations. Some are even associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah — notwithstanding the Obama State Department’s preposterous announcement last week that there are “no known operational cells” of such groups in the Western Hemisphere.

Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay? Is he OK with the extensive hamstringing of law enforcement this bill entails, which can only make it more difficult to protect us against such unwanted aliens?

Then there’s the screening process mandated by the gang’s legislation for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants already here. It seems designed to delude the innocent, not detect the dangerous. Its superficial, hands-off review bears no resemblance to the 14-hour interview the FBI conducted of Tamerlan Tsarnaev before the Boston Marathon bombings— and even that proved inadequate to the task of identifying and excluding a threat.

Mr. Rubio cannot finesse the hard choice before him. An amendment here or there will not fix the systemic problems with a bill that, at its core, ignores and subverts national security by undoing much of the law put in place after Sept. 11 to thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system. Will he enable it to become the devastating new law of the land?
Syndicate content

Washington Times Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Wednesday 04/09/2014, 11:25am
Conservative talk show host Steve Deace writes in the Washington Times today that gay rights advocates are trying to instill a 1984-style “fascism,” and blames this development on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. “Every fascist movement in human history would be proud” of the gay rights movement, he writes, warning that the movement poses a greater threat to America than “jihadists” and is forcing Christians “debate our very existence” in the US. After being desensitized to homosexuality by... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/25/2014, 4:55pm
Anti-gay activist William Owens is pushing for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for “trampling the rule of law” by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.” Holder recently said that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend discriminatory laws such as marriage bans that they deem unconstitutional. Writing today for the Washington Times, Owens says that Holder effectively “shredded” the Constitution and that the attorney general and President Obama have turned “their backs on... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 02/20/2014, 2:21pm
Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt has a new theory that support for immigration reform is the position “that’s actually racist.” In a column Tuesday, Hurt accused Democrats of staging a “deviously racist” “brown-face minstrel show routine” when it comes to immigration reform, because, he says, Democrats want “millions more” to “become addicted to the pitiful, slow-drip government teat” and turn into “another plantation of impoverished, enslaved voters”: When Democrats “fight” for illegals, they... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 02/03/2014, 4:50pm
Conservative columnist Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union is offended that “our Muslim enemies falsely describe” America as the “world’s Great Satan,” but he agrees that we are certainly on our way to becoming just that. “We might consider asking our ruling elites in Hollywood, New York and Washington to give the mullahs less evidence for that claim,” he writes in the Washington Times. The ACRU senior fellow alleges that America’s “ever-coarsening, ‘progressive’ popular culture and the ruling elites” are... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 11/22/2013, 11:45am
Conservative commentators have pounced on a fishy New York Post article this week which claimed that the US Census faked jobs data to help President Obama’s re-election chances. Among the major flaws in the Post’s report was that the Census worker whom the paper suggests fabricated the pre-election unemployment report left the Census Bureau in August, 2011. But Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner took the Post’s dubious story as confirmation of earlier right-wing predictions that Obama “deliberately manipulated” Census data to aid his campaign, and... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 11/18/2013, 12:30pm
Conservative columnist Mackbuin Thomas Owens writes in a Washington Times column published yesterday that women’s rights advocates are waging a “feminist attack on military culture” with their “recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.” “The charge of rampant sexual assault is only the latest campaign in a war on military culture,” he writes. Owens claims that the figures on sexual assault in the military must be inflated because of a discrepancy between the number of people who said in an anonymous survey that they faced... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 10/11/2013, 1:30pm
Conservative columnist Jeffrey Kuhner claims that polling showing the GOP’s popularity dropping to record lows is proof that Republicans are winning the government shutdown fight. Writing for the Washington Times today, Kuhner said that the disastrous polling numbers are all part of a big plan to “win the Obamacare war.” How? The Tea Party, of course! He claims that even though most Americans oppose of the GOP’s attempt to link Obamacare funding to the shutdown, Kuhner says that most Americas actually love Republican anti-Obamacare zeal and the Tea Party. However, the... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 10/08/2013, 10:55am
Washington Times columnist Robert Knight wants the government to remove a transgender child from her parents and charge her parents “with endangerment, abuse and whatever else the authorities can find to deter such criminal insanity.” Knight is referring to Tammy Lobel, the adopted daughter of a lesbian couple. Tammy, born Thomas, is on hormone blockers to delay puberty and her parents support her decision to live as a girl. Knight claims that the parents’ support for their “acquired” daughter represents “child abuse,” and said that the only “... MORE >