Fighting the Right

David Barton, Who Refused To Run For Office, Now Says Refusing To Run For Office Is 'Pure Selfishness'

For the second time in one week, we have now watched David Barton appear on a Religious Right television program where he lectures Christians on the necessity of running for political office as the host mutely sits there and nods in agreement without ever pointing out that, just a few months ago, Barton himself did the very thing he is now saying that Christians must never do.

Appearing on "The Difference With Matthew Hagee" yesterday, Barton repeated the Parable of the Thornbush while declaring that a Christian who refuses to run for office when asked to do so by his or her fellow Christians is being selfish.

"If your fellow citizens tell you they want you in office, you don't have a right to say no," Barton said. "That's pure selfishness."

Of course, just four months ago a movement to draft Barton to run for the US Senate in a challenge to Sen. John Cornyn that was championed by none other than Glenn Beck was quashed when Barton declared that running for office was not right for him because his "role is to continue educating, equipping, and inspiring citizens through the work we do at WallBuilders." 

Keep in mind that this is literally the exact sort of selfishness that he says Christians cannot display when asked to run for office:

Creationists: Sickle Cell Anemia Shows Evolution Is Wrong

Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research explains that sickle cell anemia, a blood disorder that affords a selective advantage against malarial infection, demonstrates that evolution, unlike Creationism, is fundamentally flawed.

“Evolution says that beneficial mutations have occurred trillions of times, but their best example is the fatal disease,” John Morris said in a radio bulletin today. “The point is, they’re grasping at straws; the Creation story, like we’re told back in Genesis, it’s much more credible.”

Let PBS explain how this case actually proves that evolution occurs:

A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria, a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.



Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.

It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.

Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.

For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."

Austin Ruse: Right Wing Watch Is Trying To Shut Me Up By Quoting Me Verbatim

Austin Ruse is upset that we reported on comments he made yesterday on Sandy Rios In The Morning, the American Family Association radio program he is guest hosting, where he said that “the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities,” especially the women’s studies departments, “should all be taken out and shot.” Ruse, who heads the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), spent yesterday and today lashing out at critics on Twitter, saying liberals are “dumb,” “stupid” and “idiots.”

Ruse started today’s show by explaining that his remarks yesterday weren’t serious and that liberals should “turn to Wikipedia or the Internet, I don’t know if they know how to use the Internet.”

“The pajama boys over at Right Wing Watch have their panties all in a twist about what I said, and I sometimes think that the left is really dumb, these are the low-information voters that make all of these mistakes when they get into the ballot box and all of these mistakes as they go through their lives and one of the reasons is because they are so dumb,” he said.

After calling liberals “dumb” and “pajama boys,” he then criticized them as “smear merchants” who “call [people] names” and want to shut him up.

“These people, these dumb leftists, are really smear merchants, they’re out to hurt, to harm, to isolate,” Ruse said. “They don’t like me, they don’t like you, they don’t like your children, they don’t like anything about you and they want you to basically shut up and go away…. It’s quite astounding what these folks are able to get away with and it’s also astounding how dumb they are.”

Tony Perkins Insists Obama Is Hurting The Black Community By Supporting Marriage Equality

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins is troubled by President Obama’s new My Brother’s Keeper Initiative, which encourages communities to partner “with local businesses and foundations to connect” boys and young men of color “to mentoring, support networks, and skills they need to find a good job or go to college and work their way up into the middle class.”

Perkins fears that the program is actually all about growing the size of government and, of course, opposes it simply because President Obama is involved. “The President’s liberal agenda of abortion, promiscuity, and same-sex marriage hasn’t fixed the problems, it’s exacerbated them,” he said.

Fortunately for President Obama, there is one job where his approval ratings are soaring: fatherhood. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Like almost half of all kids today, having a father at home was a luxury Barack Obama didn't enjoy. And last week, he launched a new program to spare other kids the same issues. To fight the crime and poverty that comes with broken families, the President kicked off a program called My Brother's Keeper to help minority boys. And while it's fine for the government to raise awareness about the problem -- it's not fine, or even possible, for the government to be the solution. What these kids need isn't Washington's touch, but a family's. Until now, the President's liberal agenda of abortion, promiscuity, and same-sex marriage hasn't fixed the problems, it's exacerbated them. Focusing on minority kids could have a huge impact on American society -- if the President realizes that marriage, life, and faith are essential ingredients.

Erik Rush Claims Obama Is Ushering In 'World War III' In Order To Destroy America

WorldNetDaily’s Erik Rush writes today that President Obama is backing a “Nazi regime” in Ukraine in hopes that it will lead to a violent conflict with Russia, “which would result in America’s devastation.” Rush’s grand conspiracy involves Ukrainian Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood and progressives in the US, whom he claims are all united in seeking “the destruction of the entire American system.”

Rush writes that it “is common knowledge in Europe” that Obama is using the crisis in Ukraine “to touch off World War III,” but the American press is hiding Obama’s diabolical plan just as it supposedly covered up “voter fraud” and the administration’s “treason and perhaps murder in the case of the Benghazi attack.”

Rush, who has demanded the execution of administration officials and called for the imprisonment of journalists and anyone who criticizes him, ends the column by arguing that members of the press are “in the dock with President Obama and others in his administration and our government who have committed treason against America and the Constitution.”

“As the despot Obama devastates our economy and incrementally enslaves us, the press continues to prioritize trivialities like climate change and gender identity issues, while obediently paving the way for the odious, toxic witch who believes she is heir apparent to the presidency,” Rush writes. “Should Americans ever reach a level of consciousness sufficient to perceive the crimes of the press, I only hope there will be hell to pay for them as well.”

So, why would an American president – and a black American president at that – support an ascendant 21st-century Nazi regime, considering all of the attendant overtones of racism, fascism and genocide?

The answer lies in the same place as that of why 20th-century Nazis would align themselves with the Japanese and Arab Muslims, or why the American political left would align itself with radical Muslims (who would kill off half of the left’s base if they happened to gain pre-eminence in America): common philosophies and common objectives.

The common philosophy of Hitler’s Nazis, Benito Mussolini’s Italian regime and the Japanese Empire in World War II was fascism. The common objectives of Hitler and Arab Muslims was the eradication of Jews in Europe and the Middle East, respectively. The common objectives of the political left in America today and Islamists is the destruction of the entire American system.

Of course, Obama’s common objective with the Ukrainian opposition – challenging Vladimir Putin – has become worrisome to all concerned. Particularly disturbing to observers such as myself who habitually look beneath the radar is how this plays out relative to Obama’s overall designs. Given the body of clandestine, dark machinations he has brought to bear, more than a few of us fear that his confrontation with Putin may be integral in bringing about a cataclysm beyond the conceptualization of most Americans, one which would result in America’s devastation. This theme has of course been an ongoing advantage to Obama by definition, in that one cannot defend against what one cannot even conceptualize, let alone perceive.

As indicated, all of the above – with the exception of Obama’s possible intention to touch off World War III – is common knowledge in Europe, yet the American press has made no mention of it whatsoever. The reason is obvious: Americans simply would not stand for a government that allied with anything resembling Nazis.

Of course, were Americans generally apprised of any number of things in which the Obama administration has been engaged (such as an administration guilty of treason and perhaps murder in the case of the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012, providing military and economic aid to Islamists in Egypt and Syria, and the Arab Spring; clandestine domestic spying programs, the use of government agencies to persecute private citizens, the insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into high places in our government, voter fraud and so on), they would be similarly outraged.

All of which puts the press, in my humble opinion, in the dock with President Obama and others in his administration and our government who have committed treason against America and the Constitution. As the despot Obama devastates our economy and incrementally enslaves us, the press continues to prioritize trivialities like climate change and gender identity issues, while obediently paving the way for the odious, toxic witch who believes she is heir apparent to the presidency.

The American people would no more tolerate a press that shielded a government from accountability where such things were concerned than they would the government itself. Should Americans ever reach a level of consciousness sufficient to perceive the crimes of the press, I only hope there will be hell to pay for them as well.

Barber & Staver: 'President Obama Clearly Hates Christianity'

As Brian reported last week, Mat Staver is very upset that Rajiv Shah, a Hindu USAID official, was allowed to deliver the keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, saying it was proof of Obama's "insensitivity to Christianity."

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Staver and co-host Matt Barber continued to complain about it, with Barber asserting that the National Prayer Breakfast organizers never should have agreed to allow an "anti-Christian speaker" to speak at the event even if it meant that Obama would not attend because, by refusing to attend, it would demonstrate to everyone that "President Obama clearly hates Christianity" and reveal that he "does not respect religious freedom":

Staver: This is President Obama who brings into the National Prayer Breakfast someone who doesn't mention Jesus, somebody who is not a Christian, somebody who is not a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is Obama, who goes after Little Sisters of the Poor because he doesn't really care for religious freedom.

Barber: Unbelievable, Matt. And shame on the organizers of the National Prayer Breakfast. They should have just let the chips fall where they may; President Obama clearly hates Christianity. He claims to be a Christian but he hates what the Bible teaches, so let him not come. That speaks volumes. The American people already know he's anti-Christian. Just let him be anti-Christian. They don't need an anti-Christian speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Staver: Unfortunately they didn't want that to happen ... because it would be the first time in the history of the prayer breakfast that a president didn't show up.  But I would say it's par for the course for President Obama not to show up. Let him not show up because it reveals who he really is: somebody who does not respect religious freedom.

For the record, Shah did positively mention Jesus several times during his remarks.

Ben Carson Warns Americans Are Losing First Amendment Rights To Speak Against Marriage Equality

In an appearance on yesterday’s edition of the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch, Ben Carson said that “people everywhere from politicians down to the lowliest person in our society” are “terrified” of speaking out on issues such as gay rights.

When host Tony Perkins asked him why politicians aren’t more vocal in their opposition to marriage equality, Carson said that members of the “PC police” are using “Alinskyite-type rules” to restrict “the freedom of speech [and] the freedom of expression.”

That’s odd, because at CPAC last week several speakersincluding Carson himself — openly denounced gay rights and weren’t arrested or fined or punished in any way. Maybe all of this oppression is just happening in his own mind, where mere criticism is equated with persecution.

Rick Wiles: 'America Has Been Overthrown By A Nazi Dictatorship'

Given that End Times radio host Rick Wiles is a sane and reasonable man with a long history of being right about a vast number of things, it is only logical for us to be alarmed when we learned from him today that America has been overthrown by Nazis.

As Wiles was preparing to interview John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, on his radio program yesterday, he furiously declared that America has been taken over by a Nazi dictatorship as the culmination of a plot set in motion following World War II. This same Nazi movement is also behind the events in Ukraine, which will lead to World War III where America and other Western nations will be the evil Axis Powers while Russia and China will be the good guys:

I've warned the American people for fifteen years this day would arrive and it is here. No more warnings. America has been overthrown by a Nazi dictatorship. It is in power now.

Tens of thousands of German Nazis were important to America after World War II. They taught America's elite how to set up a Nazi dictatorship. We are now in the new Nazi nightmare. So don't blame it on that buffoon in the White House, Barack Obama. He is merely their little stooge, just like George Bush and Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton were their stooges too.

Bush and Cheney gave us the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and the TSA. Barack Obama is using all of them, put in place by Bush and Cheney to enslave us in this Nazi regime.

...

Viktor Yanukovych, the elected Ukrainian president ousted by the revolution, said today that Ukrainian cities are being patrolled by masked gunman and that the new revolutionary government is purging the Ukrainian military of patriotic officers. Wow. That sounds like what Barack Obama is doing to the US military.

Wake up, American people. This country has been overthrown by Nazis. They are trying to take over the world.

In World War III, America and the West will be the Axis Powers. Russia and China will be the Allied Forces. Everything is upside down. God have mercy on us.

WND: Immigration Is 'Destroying Our Society' And Turning Cities Into 'Cesspools'

WorldNetDaily commentator Selena Owens writes today about how much she valued Ann Coulter’s anti-immigrant remarks at CPAC, in which the pundit compared immigration to rape and called for “death squads” against reform advocates.

Owens, a Tea Party activist with the Conservative Campaign Committee, lamented that liberals are painting opponents of the DREAM Act and other reform proposals as similar to “the big bad wolf waiting to prey on innocent Goldilocks kids.”

“America will be overrun by cesspools of sanctuary cities destroying our society” if immigration reform moves forward, Owens said. “If amnesty passes, border patrol agents and American citizens who died defending borders and personal property would have died in vain.”

Coulter accurately points out that liberals use this “shaming” tactic to humiliate people into feeling guilty about standing up for secure borders, deportation and criminal punishment for immigrants who illegally enter the U.S. Why is a guilt trip laid upon law-abiding Americans regarding the potential fate of illegal immigrants? It’s not our fault that immigrants decide to enter America illegally, yet liberals and pro-amnesty GOP sellouts want us to emotionally own it by conveying exaggerated and inflammatory scenarios of children potentially being ripped from their families, deported and helplessly left to fend for themselves. That’s the narrative. Anti-amnesty citizens are akin to the big bad wolf waiting to prey on innocent Goldilocks kids.



Coulter expertly notes instances where “shaming is good.” She retells of an era in America in which large corporations shamed Americans about littering through “Keep America Beautiful” ads depicting Native Americans crying about people polluting the natural beauty of the earth. It worked; people stopped littering, or, at least, felt ashamed if they did. But in California, parks are closed due to littering from illegal immigrants. No, no … don’t shame them; just close the parks. If this pattern in any indication of what will happen if amnesty passes, America will be overrun by cesspools of sanctuary cities destroying our society.

Shaming can effectively be used to encourage people to feel remorseful about injustice, immorality and lawbreaking. But in the case of amnesty, the president, liberals and RINO sellouts use shaming as political power-broker deals, where American citizens are pawned off in favor of illegal lawbreakers.

Liberals use the shame game against American citizens to forcefully advance the pro-amnesty/illegal immigration agenda. I agree with Coulter that the American people are the only voice that can make a difference in this matter. If amnesty passes, border patrol agents and American citizens who died defending borders and personal property would have died in vain.

And that’s something amnesty proponents should be ashamed of.

Austin Ruse Says Left-Wing University Professors 'Should All Be Taken Out And Shot'

While filling in today for American Family Radio host Sandy Rios, Austin Ruse commented on the media frenzy surrounding a Duke University freshman who announced that she is a porn actress.

Ruse, who leads the ultraconservative Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), promptly blamed the college’s women’s studies department and said that “the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities” should “all be taken out and shot.”

That is the nonsense that they teach in women’s studies at Duke University, this is where she learned this. The toxic stew of the modern university is gender studies, it’s “Sex Week,” they all have “Sex Week” and teaching people how to be sex-positive and overcome the patriarchy. My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.

Ralph Reed: Social Issues Aren't Going Away, So GOP Needs To 'Stand And Fight' Against Gay Marriage And Abortion Rights

After delivering his remarks at CPAC, Ralph Reed sat down with the PolitiChicks to discuss the lack of attention given to social issues like gay marriage or abortion at the conference. Reed said it was unfortunate that these issues did not receive more attention not only at CPAC but from Republican candidates in general "because I think they're winning issues."

These sorts of social issues "never go away," Reed said, so any Republican running for office needs to just "plant your feet, stand and fight, and make it clear where you stand."

What is particularly upsetting to the GOP's right-wing base, Reed said, is that Democratic leaders like President Obama or Vice President Biden have no qualms about publicly declaring their support for marriage equality while "too many of our guys, they run for the tall grass even when the question comes up":

)

Kupelian: Republicans Should Impeach Obama If They Take Control Of Congress

WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian yesterday urged Republicans to impeach and remove President Obama from office if they take control of the Senate and keep the House in the upcoming election.

Kupelian added that if Republicans don’t move to remove the president, then they should at least block all of Obama’s policies.

Speaking yesterday with American Family Association head Tim Wildmon — who has also called for Obama’s impeachment — Kupelian said that “we need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.”

The best case scenario: If the Republicans were to A) take back the Senate and maintain the House, and B) really develop some real background and guts -- I’m not saying this will happen, I’m saying it is possible -- they could actually go so far as impeaching the president and removing him from office. This has happened before, this is America, it’s in the Constitution, it is legal and moral to do so. Or at the very least they could defund Obamacare, there are various things that they could do.

The media would attack them and say, ‘You are destroying the country,’ they can and will do that. They would simply have the courage to say, ‘You know what, the media, a branch of the mainstream media so-called, have become a wing of the Democrat Party [sic], they’re cheerleading section, we’re just going to have to weather all the unpopularity and do what’s right.’

Now if they don’t win that election, it’s just going to continue on for the next three years and the Obama people will do the best they can, with his pen and his phone, to bypass Congress and continue to so tie up and tangle up things that when he leaves office in 2017 that it will be too difficult to ever untangle, that’s part of what he’s doing, just tying things up. Putting judges into office when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster, what was that for? It was so that they could get hard left, progressive judges into office so that when there are inevitable legal challenges over what Obama has done, these judges will back him up. It’s pretty sad. We need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.

D'Souza: Obama's 'Optical Illusion' Tricked Voters Who Feared Electing 'An Angry Black Man'

Last week during CPAC, Dinesh D’Souza stopped by The Lars Larson Show and told the conservative commentator that President Obama was elected because “the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion.”

He said that voters went with Obama because they didn’t want to make “an angry black man” who backed “racial reparations” the country’s first black president, not realizing that Obama is actually “more radical” than such a candidate because “he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis.”

Larson: How did we end up with a president who didn’t look out first and foremost for America’s best interests and the best interests of the people here, and somehow cast himself as, what, a president of the world?

D’Souza: What really happened Lars I think is this: the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion. The American people were scared that our first black president would be, in a sense, you may say an angry black man, some sort of a radical who would be calling for racial reparations. And Obama didn’t do that and so people went ‘phew, he’s not like that, he’s going to be somebody who will look out for the country.’ What they didn’t realize was that although Obama doesn’t support racial reparations, he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis. So he is actually in a way more radical. But that was not seen by most people and is only becoming sadly apparent now.

D’Souza also warned that Hillary Clinton would fulfill Obama’s “radical” agenda if she follows him as president.

“My feeling is that Hillary is closer to Barack than she is to Bill,” D’Souza said. “Hillary was always the radical in that duo.”

“I think Obama may have intuited that if he’s going to remake America in the way that he said he was going to, he may have decided, ‘Eight years is not enough, if I had the Congress I might have been able to do it, I need sixteen years.’ So I wonder if in Obama’s mind he’s thinking, ‘If I give the baton to Hillary, will she run in the same direction that I’ve been running?’”

Oliver North Thinks Obama Could Be Impeached For Benghazi Because 'Nobody Died In Iran-Contra'

Oliver North, the Reagan administration National Security Council staffer who became a conservative hero because of his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, said last week that President Obama could be impeached for his handling of issues including the Benghazi attack because unlike in Benghazi, “nobody died in Iran-Contra.”

North told Tim Constantine of the Tea Party News Network that the Reagan administration didn’t try to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, a fact he might want to check with his own secretary from the time. He also urged House Speaker John Boehner to form a special committee on Benghazi. Right-wing activists have only increased their demands for a special committee after the House Republicans’ own reportamong othersdebunked conspiracy theories about the Obama administration’s handling of the attack.

“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for, there’s no doubt in my mind,” North said.

As Brian Powell of Media Matters notes, it is patently absurd to claim that no one died as a result of the Iran Contra scandal, “in which the Republican hero trafficked arms into the hands of a tyrannical Iranian government, negotiated with Hezbollah terrorists and funneled money and military equipment into the hands of violent revolutionaries in America’s own backyard.”

“The assertion -- that the Reagan administration’s felonious dealings with terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations didn’t lead to a single casualty -- is absurd to anyone with even the most elementary understanding of what Iran-Contra was or to anyone with access to the Internet,” Powell writes.

During Iran-Contra, top Reagan administration officials, at the behest of the president himself, funneledmoney to "contra" guerilla fighters in Nicaragua in direct violation of U.S. and international law. The contras, according to Human Rights Watch, "were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." To claim that the U.S. funding did not lead to the deaths of innocents beggars belief.

In addition to supporting the deadly activities of the contras, Iran-Contra resulted in the deaths of three members of the Central Intelligence Agency when an American aircraft carrying equipment for the anti-government guerrillas was shot down over the Nicaraguan jungle.

On the other side of the arms deal, Reagan trafficked weapons, including hundreds of missiles, to anoppressive Iranian regime mired in a war with Iraq. No rational person could possibly believe that the delivery of so many weapons into the hands of a violent, war-torn government didn't result in numerous deaths.

Dana Rohrabacher Floats Impeaching Obama Over Immigration Reform

In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) railed against President Obama’s “unconstitutional approach” to immigration, warning that the president’s policies are undermining the Constitution and suggesting that Congress impeach him and remove him from office.

“We’ve got three years to get this guy out,” Rohrabacher said. “Hopefully he — well, let me put it this way, I think he probably has been engaged in these unconstitutional approaches that may make his own ability to stay in office a question.”

“But at the very least we need to make sure after three years we get a president who will set us back on the right path and we have a Congress, meaning a Senate and a House, that can stand unified and try to prevent the type of damage you have from an arrogant president who thinks he can enforce only the laws that he agrees with,” he added.

Rohrabacher said he was “outraged” by the president’s comments in a joint interview with Univision and Telemundo, where he said that eligible family members in “mixed status families” can participate and sign up for insurance plans through the health care reform law without the fear that it might endanger their family:

"For everybody out there who is in a mixed family, there is no sharing of the data from the health care plan into immigration services. You should feel confident that if somebody in your family is eligible you should sign up," he said.

The law bars anyone living in the U.S. illegally from purchasing health care on the exchanges or receiving tax credits. They are also not eligible for any federal programs such as Medicare or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The congressman claimed that this is evidence that Obama cares more about undocumented immigrants than US citizens: “We clearly have a president who is dedicated to the wellbeing of people who are here in our country illegally and instead of watching out for the interests of the American people. We have him watching out for the interests of foreign people who come here illegally.”

Rohrabacher also suggested that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy [PDF] that prevents the agency from using health care enrollment information to deport family members of enrollees may compromise national security much like in the lead-up to the September 11 attacks.

Daubenmire: 'You Cannot Separate The Sinner From His Sin'

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a phrase we have heard countless times from right-wing Christians attempting to pass off their anti-gay bigotry as an act of love. We have never quite understood how that was supposed to work and neither does "Coach" Dave Daubenmire who declared on his latest video commentary that the concept, while nice in principle, is pretty much nonsense.

"That isn't anywhere in Scripture," Daubenmire said of the trite phrase. "You cannot separate the sin from the person. The person becomes poisoned with the sin and for us to be able to say 'well, I love the sinner but I hate that sin," that just doesn't fly."

"Folks, you cannot separate those two things," he declared. "You cannot separate the sinner from his sin":

Farah: Jan Brewer Should 'Resign In Disgrace' For Vetoing Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

When Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed her state’s “right-to-discriminate” bill, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was so upset that he said her decision would lead to the end of freedom.

Today, Farah writes that Brewer “should resign in disgrace,” warning that now “all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight.”

Farah writes that opposition to the anti-gay segregation bill proves that “the left hates religion” and “hates God,” and is bent on eroding the “religious freedom, press freedom and free speech” by leading a “statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.”

Here’s the first problem: The left hates religion. It hates God. It doesn’t recognize any behavior as sinful, with the possible exception of voting Republican. To undermine all it hates, it pushes the political envelope. It divides people up into groups rather than recognizing all people as individuals made in the image of God. It then serves up special privileges for groups as a way of buying their votes.

Here’s the second problem: The left excoriates and vilifies its opponents when they take positions contrary to their own. They are labeled racists and homophobes and worse. Slowly but surely, they know some of their opponents will do almost anything to escape the ad hominem attacks and hateful labeling.

Here’s the third problem: Non-left politicians who should be counted on to do the right thing will cave on almost any issue under that kind of fire.

That’s what happened when Jan Brewer capitulated on the freedom of religion bill known as Senate Bill 1062, which offered clear protection for people who do not want to be coerced into actions or behavior that violates their moral and religious precepts.



So why was the left so threatened by this bill?

For the same reason they detest the Constitution’s protections of religious freedom, press freedom and free speech.

They don’t believe in liberty!

That’s why the First Amendment is really in danger in America today. We could lose it very quickly. That’s why the Second Amendment is constantly threatened and under siege by the left. That’s why, ultimately, all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight unless Americans awaken quickly and completely and stop sleepwalking through life.



Jan Brewer surrendered to the lies, the insults and the deliberate distortions. She should resign in disgrace.



The Constitution is on life support because there are so few men and women with courage, principle and a sense of right and wrong in politics today in the Republican Party, which, sadly, represents the only hope of reversing the statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.

Cruz, Huckabee & Abbott To Join Religious Right Leaders For Christian Nationalist Summit

The Texas state chapter of David Lane’s extremist American Renewal Project is set to host Sen. Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott, the state attorney general and GOP gubernatorial nominee, at a “Pastors’ Policy Briefing” next month. Cruz has also addressed the group’s chapters in Iowa and South Carolina, two early primary states.

Mike Huckabee, who like Cruz has also floated the possibility of running for president in 2016, will also appear at the event.

The Texas Freedom Network points out that at a Texas “Pastors’ Policy Briefing” in 2005, Dwight McKissic said that God used Hurricane Katrina “to purify our nation” from gay people.

Joining Cruz and Abbott will include Religious Right favorites including American Family Association founder Don Wildmon; pseudo-historian and anti-gay activist David Barton; anti-gay preacher Ken Graves; right-wing conspiracy theorist William Federer and Laurence White, who believes God is about to destroy America.

Ted Cruz Thinks Republicans 'Stood Up To' GOP Presidents Who 'Abused Their Power'

Still riffing off the phony IRS scandal, last week Ted Cruz told American Family Radio host Sandy Rios that President Obama is using the tax agency “as the attack dogs of partisan politics to help the Obama administration to win elections.”

In an amazing example of revisionist history, the Texas senator said that Republicans consistently called out Republican presidents when they violated the law: “The difference, Sandy, we have had Republicans who have abused their power and when that’s happened, Republicans have rightly stood up to them, called them out and defended the Constitution. What’s missing now is: Where are the Democrats? Where are the media? Where is anybody that has an interest in rule of law and following the Constitution and preserving the liberty of the citizens?”

We look forward to Cruz providing the many recent examples that definitely exist of GOP congressmen targeting Republican presidents.

Louie Gohmert Warns Obamacare Will Lower Life Expectancy

In an interview with Lars Larson last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said he opposes “fixes” to Obamacare because that would preserve the health care reform law, which he wants to see postponed until it is fully repealed. Gohmert then told Larson that the Affordable Care Act will actually lower life expectancy in the US.

“I’m willing to postpone as much of it as we can, hoping that in 2016 we really will get a president who has the best interest of a free nation at heart and not one going socialist,” Gohmert said. “If we keep doing little fixes to it, that also helps keep it, so I would rather postpone it as much as possible without doing little fixes because the little fixes could end up giving us a system where we see the morality rate start coming down, you die earlier, not because it’s an actual death panel but because you don’t get the treatment.”

Gohmert may be curious to know that life expectancy in America is actually lower than in Western countries with universal health care.

Syndicate content