Family Research Council shooting and Southern Poverty Law Center's 'Hate Map'

The shooting that took place inside the Family Research Council (FRC) is beginning to look more and more political in nature. FRC, headed by Anthony Perkins, is a socially conservative organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage and opposes gay marriage. One could say that FRC and Chick-fil-A are on the same page.

Floyd Lee Corkins was taken into custody after shooting a security guard in FRC's lobby. It turns out that Corkins has done extensive volunteer work at a gay rights organization and was carrying several Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack at the time of the shooting. Oh, and one more thing; the FBI has reported that Corkins made a political statement prior to the shooting.

Via CNS News:

On Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins of Herndon, Va., allegedly entered the lobby of the Family Research Council and shot the security guard.  According to the FBI, Corkins had a 9mm handgun, two magazines of ammunition, 50 rounds of additional ammo and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. According to the FBI, he  “stated words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics...’”

...The suspect, Floyd Corkins, had been volunteering for the last six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. The DC Center released a statement condemning the violence, which was signed by 40 other local and national LGBT groups.

That leads us to the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), primarily because of the standard set by the left-wing media, pundits, and movement. The SPLC actually has a 'Hate Map' that identifies entities and individuals it views as being hateful. The FRC is on that map and listed as being 'Anti-Gay'.

First, some context and why SPLC's map is relevant.

Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on January 8, 2011, New York Times writer Paul Krugman blamed Sarah Palin for using a map that showed 'crosshair' targets on districts in the country that were held by vulnerable Democrats prior to the 2010 elections; Giffords' district was one that had a target on it and Krugman pounced:

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Instead of being fired for journalistic malpractice, Krugman remained a hero to the left. A consequence was that a new, very low standard had been set. Using Krugman's standard, perpetrators of acts of violence could not only escape 100% accountability for their actions but that people who had nothing to do with it could be blamed. In this case, Krugman implied that Jared Loughner shot Giffords because Sarah Palin released a map that was clearly intended to identify vulnerable Democrats to be targeted... for DEFEAT AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Making matters worse for Krugman, as usual, were facts. Not only did Palin's map have absolutely nothing to do with the Tucson shootings but if Loughner was political at all, he was a leftist (he identified the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as two of his favorite books).

Now, back to Corkins and the FRC shooting. Unlike Palin's map - intended to generate voter enthusiasm in certain districts - the SPLC's 'Hate Map' is quite plainly intended to identify groups with which it disagrees as being legitimate targets of hatred themselves based on their political views.

Via CNS News:

At a press conference on Thursday outside the FRC headquarters in downtown Washington, FRC President Perkins said, “I want to express my appreciation to the groups and organizations that we do not agree with on many public policy issues who have also expressed their outrage at what took place here yesterday. For that, I appreciate it. I appreciate them making those statements.”

“But I would ask them to go a step further and to join us in calling for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe led to yesterday’s incident that took place right behind me,” he said.

“And that does bring me to my final point,” said Perkins.  “Let me be clear, that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson.  But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

“And I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism,” he said.  “There’s no room for that in a society such as ours that works through differences that we have on issues in public policy through a peaceful means.”

It is probably not advisable for Perkins to say that SPLC gave Corkins a 'license to shoot' because that can take away from his contention that Corkins was solely responsible for the shooting. However, when applying the standard set by the likes of Krugman, it's a valid point.

The FRC shooting appears to be much more politically motivated than the Giffords shooting was. Let's see, the shooter works for a gay rights group, carries 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack, proceeds to walk into the lobby of a socially conservative organization, and says openly that he doesn't like the politics of that organization while shooting people.

Yet, Krugman and his left-wing media colleagues are silent.

h/t WZ

Video: Romney asked about Chick-fil-A and Huma Abedin; punts on both

While in Reno, NV Mitt Romney was asked to respond to both the Chick-fil-A and Huma Abedin controversies. One had to deal with a rebuke of Chicago-stye fascism and the American people standing up against it; the other has to do with some increasingly alarming connections to the Muslim Brotherhood at our State Department.

The good news is that Romney didn't take the position John McCain did and attack Michele Bachmann when asked about Huma Abedin. The not so good news is that he didn't take a position at all. If you were looking for anecdotal evidence for why the Tea Party isn't warming up to Mitt Romney, this is it.

While it can be understood that Romney made a political calculation here, imagine what the response of a Newt Gingrich or a Sarah Palin would be in the same circumstance. You can guarantee it would consist of red meat. The more I think about this response, the more I disagree with it. More than anything else, it very well could foreshadow a very moderate presidency.

h/t Hot Air:

Confirmed: Romney can now officially call Obama a 'socialist'

Last year, during an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, Mitt Romney refused to call Obama a socialist when asked. Instead, he said he would prefer to just say, "he's in over his head," a "liberal," and a, "failure."

Well, the least Romney could do is ask Mr. Obama why he attended a socialist event in 1996.

Via Buzzfeed:

It's a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago. In this little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996, Obama was listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) = Communists. Allen West was derided for identifying 80 communists in Congress. Imagine if he'd have pointed to the White House too.

Reason #1,965 Not to get excited about Mitt Romney.

Back on May 9th, Buzzfeed posted a find perhaps even more significant because it shows that Obama's gay marriage position never evolved; it changed for political expediency. He's lying... again, which is what socialists do. Here is a document signed by Obama himself. It is a list of answers he gave to questions pertaining to homosexual rights. Note what he wrote for answer #6:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Is it possible to "evolve" and "devolve" at the same time?

Video: Pastor's solution for homosexuality involves electrified fences

Uh, can I be against homosexuality without agreeing with this pastor from North Carolina? This is the kind of reaction Obama was probably hoping for when he came out in support of gay marriage.

Via Charlotte's CBS affiliate:



**UPDATE** For anyone who thinks it ridiculous that Obama would welcome this kind of reaction, consider this excerpt from page 117 of Rules for Radicals, the book penned by his hero, Saul Alinsky:

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
     "The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict."

Some will argue that such an excerpt is actually talking about the agitation of forces who share his position but in reality, if conflict is the ultimate goal, does it really matter who you agitate? This may also go a long way in explaining why Obama came out for gay marriage despite it being politically untenable.

Was Biden's mad rant related to his gay marriage gaffe?

Barely more than a week after Joe Biden's gay marriage gaffe on Meet the Press, he came unhinged in Ohio and went on an incoherent rant, saying among other things, "they don't get us." You're right, Joe. If I'm in the "they" to which you refer, I don't get insane.

In any case, if Biden's gaffe was actually a gaffe and not an Alinsky-style distraction concocted by the likes of David Axelrod, this rant makes a bit more sense. Reports are that the administration was livid with Joe after he told David Gregory that he supports gay marriage because it forced Obama to come out in support of it too. The president has been dropping in the polls ever since, so it's quite possible that Biden is the object of increasing daily ire from the inner circle.

It's speculation, yes, but if Biden is getting beaten like a dog behind closed doors, lashing out at straw men in Youngstown, OH could be one way for him to deal with it.

Got any other ideas?

Via The Blaze:

Jay-Z's Amazing Evolution on Gay Marriage

Did Jay-Z suddenly have a homosexual road to Damascus experience on gay marriage? Based on his song lyrics, either that's the explanation or it's something more simple, like being told to get in line with the president's views. After all, Jay-Z did get to sit at the head of the table in the White House situation room.

In any case, the Daily Caller has made an interesting observation about Jay-Z's new position vs. his old, racist one:

Rap mogul Jay-Z publicly backed President Barack Obama‘s newest position on same-sex marriage, an interesting move for an important figure in an industry that is regularly regarded as outspokenly homophobic.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Jay-Z said he has always believed prohibiting same-sex marriages was “holding the country back.” He said, “you can choose to love whoever you love.”

But a short journey through the prolific history of the iconic rapper’s lyrics indicates that he may not be the best spokesman for gay marriage advocacy.

Here are some of those lyrics:

“What you gay? Nigga Jay straight like Indian hair” – From “2 Many Hoes”
“And since you infatuated with sayin’ tha gay shit” – From “Super Ugly”
“Had niggas mad for real like ‘I wish he was gay’”- From “Hey Papi”
“Hate a nigga like that faggot, get your own”- From “Lucky Me”
“That’s gay, I ain’t into liking dudes no way”- From “La La La (Excuse Me Again)”

Again, if gays today = blacks 50 years ago, the once racist Jay-Z has had an amazing evolution.

Or, maybe he just got his mind right:



Perhaps Jay-Z should consult with Bruce Springsteen about getting in touch with his gay side when writing songs:

Did Chris Matthews call black Bishop a racist?

Once again, the left cannot be allowed to have it both ways. One of the talking points from the liberal left when it comes to gay marriage is to equate the plight of the homosexuals to the plight of blacks prior to the 1960's. As such, homosexuals of today are fighting the same fight blacks did then, according to the left. With that as a premise the left has chosen to accept, Chris Matthews essentially called Bishop Harry Jackson a racist when he expressed a desire to see Jackson 'evolve.'

And so it begins. A white liberal identifies a black man as a racist for not supporting gay marriage. I think Mr. Matthews mis-diagnosed the thrill that ran up his leg.

It was more likely an electric shock treatment.

Via NewsBusters:

Video: Obama is losing black pastors of Gay Marriage issue

It's looking increasingly like the Joe Biden gay marriage gaffe was truly a gaffe and not a calculated distraction on the part of the administration. Obama continues to drop in the polls and now it appears there is a certain segment of black pastors who are withdrawing their support for Obama.

Via CBS Baltimore, h/t Hapblog:

Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, pastors and priests around Maryland took to their own pulpits with their reaction– and in some cases– condemnation of the president.

Derek Valcourt explains the president’s comments have folks on both sides of the issue fired up.

Both sides hope the president’s position helps sway votes in their favor when the issue hits Maryland’s ballot this November.

“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.

When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.

“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.

He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.

Perhaps an unintended consequence of Obama's new public stance is that white homosexuals will begin referring to black heterosexuals who reject gay marriage, as 'racists.'

Newsweek: Obama a Homosexual

For you atheists out there... Haven't you ever stopped to ask yourselves why a country's decline always seems to coincide with moral depravity? Perhaps not so coincidentally, as that moral depravity rises, so does our debt. Have you ever stopped to think... never mind, you haven't.

Over the span of less than one week, two of America's once most prominent magazines - TIME and Newsweek - featured a toddler breastfeeding and America's 'First Gay President' on their covers, respectively. That's right, Newsweek has prominently displayed Barack Obama as a homosexual.

Via Breitbart:

Today, Newsweek magazine released this week’s cover via Twitter: a hopey, changey Barack Obama staring into the future, his head swirled with a rainbow halo. The bold font title: “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.” And the cover story is written by none other than Andrew Sullivan, famed Trig Palin truther (he believes the bizarre conspiracy theory that Trig Palin is actually Bristol Palin’s son rather than Sarah Palin’s). The last time we saw Sullivan writing a cover story for Newsweek, he was asking “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”…

...The Newsweek cover is obviously a take-off on the old line about Bill Clinton being the “first black president,” but it’s also an unintended backhanded in-kind contribution to the Romney campaign. In the liberal press’ desperate gushing over Obama’s same-sex marriage stance, they’ve alienated more than half the country – every state that has ever held a referendum on same-sex marriage has voted it down. The most polarizing president in history by every measurable statistic has polarized the country yet again – yet Newsweek insists on portraying Obama as a holy figure for embracing an anti-Biblical position, thereby also alienating every religious person in the country.

Anyone still believe Obama is a Christian?

That leads to another question. Why do leftists who reject Christianity, get mad when you say they're not Christians? Shouldn't they agree with you?

Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

More Gay Marriage Fallout: Kenyan Muslim Clerics angry with Obama

Otherwise known as political death by a thousand Joe Biden gaffes, the public stance Barack Obama formally took on gay marriage this week appears to have an additional consequence even David Axelgrease couldn't have anticipated.

Via Washington Post:

Kenyan Muslim leaders from the coast region have condemned President Barack Obama’s support of same sex marriages.

Speaking to the Nation in Mombasa, Council of Imams and Preachers Organising Secretary Sheikh Mohammed Khalifa accused President Obama of playing god by legalizing what "God Himself objects".

“Simply because he has risen to be the President of a super power does not mean he can now start acting as God. He is nothing in the eyes of God and his plans will not succeed just like those who preceded him in such plans,” said Sheikh Khalifa.

We've been trying to tell the leftists that the Islamic world has a far more intolerant view of homosexuality than do Christian conservatives but they just never listen.

Silence from the gay rights crowd on these Muslim Clerics' total rejection of their lifestyle will not be forthcoming to any major degree. Why? It's actually a psychological phenomenon known as displacement:

Displacement involves taking out our frustrations, feelings and impulses on people or objects that are less threatening. Displaced aggression is a common example of this defense mechanism. Rather than express our anger in ways that could lead to negative consequences (like arguing with our boss), we instead express our anger towards a person or object that poses no threat (such as our spouse, children or pets).

Good luck telling a left-wing homosexual that he's actually angry with the wrong group. He'll get even angrier with you.

h/t Weasel Zippers 

Time for Catholic Church to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi?

It's no secret that the Obama administration has declared war on the Catholic Church. In particular, over things like abortion and gay marriage. Two of Obama's most ardent mouthpieces are Catholics themselves, to include Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. At a press conference, Pelosi was asked how she reconciles being a Catholic with supporting Obama's stated position on gay marriage.

Her response? Catholicism makes her support it.

Are we to believe too, that her faith also compels her to support abortion?

Uh, is it possible that maybe, just maybe, it could be time for the Catholic Church to show Pelosi the door? Until that happens, the moral high ground will not have been fully seized.



h/t GWP

Obama's Gay Marriage Timeline continuum still 'evolving'

The "evolving" Obama timeline continues... On Sunday, Joe Biden comes out in support of gay marriage; on Tuesday, Jay Carney can't answer reporters' questions about Obama's position on the subject; on Wednesday, Obama comes out in support of gay marriage. Now, on Thursday, the Washington Post is reporting about how Mitt Romney mistreated a homosexual while in high school.

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

Does anyone honestly believe this wasn't timed to capitalize on Obama's public stance on gay marriage one day earlier?

It also seems to indicate that the Washington Post is engaging in Alinsky's Rule #8:

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The problem for the Obama administration is that the opposition is increasingly reacting to his disadvantage.

Alinsky is beginning to fail Obama. Once he realizes that, he's completely lost.

Video Timeline: the Obama Administration's Gay Marriage Evolution

There always seems to be a new social issue that the Obama administration is either manufacturing or in the middle of. The latest involves gay marriage. It started with Vice President Joe Biden (no surprise there) and his appearance on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Keep in mind that Obama's public position has been that he supports civil unions but that he is against gay marriage. Public opposition to gay marriage is strong and it's become rather obvious that Obama wanted to wait to come out in support of gay marriage until after the election. That's not going to happen because Biden reached into the pantry, pulled out a can of worms and grabbed a can opener.

Here's the VP endorsing gay marriage:



That exchange with Gregory led to an uncomfortable round of questions for White House press secretary Jay Carney, who has become quite adroit at impersonating a human pretzel.

See for yourself, via MediaIte:



After having his position on gay marriage mocked for more than 24 hours, Barack Obama came out today and told ABC's Robin Roberts that he supports gay marriage. Watching this, it should be rather obvious that Obama did not want to do this now; he wanted to wait until after the election.

Here ya go:



Now, Obama in 2008 at Saddleback Church:



Which brings us back to Joe Biden's "who do you love" comment...

Romney's Openly Gay Foreign Policy Advisor Resigns

This could be a sign that Mitt Romney won't be able to shake that etch-a-sketch completely clean. Last week, after all but sealing up the Republican nomination, it was learned that one of Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisers - Richard Grenell - was openly gay. The news definitely raised the dander of social conservatives already hypersensitive about Romney's very liberal streak.

Now, less than a week later, Grenell has resigned.

Via Washington Post:

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.

In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:

I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.

Perhaps in an attempt to play both sides of the fence, team Romney released a statement of regret that Grenell decided to leave:

“We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”

Well, of course, by expressing sorrow for the departure, the Romney campaign doesn't alienate the GOProud crowd while also taking the gay rights pinata down from the tree so social conservatives can't beat on it anymore (in this case).

For what it's worth, Van Jones and Al Armendariz both resigned (wink, wink) without being prompted by the White House.

Video: Anti-Bullying Homosexual sets example by Bullying

Gay activists love to use the 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument. If you're a heterosexual who has no problem with homosexual behavior, you're ok. If you're a heterosexual who disagrees with homosexual behavior, you're homophobic and suppressing homosexual tendencies.

Here is another example, courtesy of gay rights / anti-bullying activist Dan Savage, who spoke to verbally bullied high school students all across the country. Apparently, if you disagree with him, you're a bully who deserves to be bullied by an anti-bullying, gay activist. Fortunately, angered Christians spoke with their feet and left.

Via Todd Starnes:

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”

Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference. 

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.

“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium. 

Look, Christians who believe Savage can be gay all day long shouldn't be forced to agree with the lifestyle. No One is talking about making homosexuality illegal or persecuting homosexuals (no one that I choose to know personally). Why does the Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral or wrong so offend Savage? He is an angry homosexual who is mad at people for not believing as he does. Period. There's a term for that and it's called 'thought police.'

As for the 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument, two can play that game. Perhaps Savage is so angry because his conscience is telling him that his lifestyle is immoral and wrong.

Here's the video:

**Language Warning (did you expect anything else?)**

Do you hear Romney's Etch-a-Sketch shaking?

Shhhhh. If you listen closely, you might hear a shaking etch-a-sketch. Two curious things happened on the day that Romney won five primaries going away, all but hammering the final nail in the coffin of any primary opponent hopes. The first was an announcement that Romney had appointed an openly homosexual (arguably activist) man to his team of advisers on foreign policy issues.

Via Christian Post:

Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has named an openly gay man to his team of campaign advisers on national security and foreign policy issues in a move that is drawing criticism from some conservatives questioning his Mormon beliefs.

Richard Grenell, 45, is an experienced politician who has served as a spokesman for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and was also appointed by Ambassador John Danforth in 2004 to serve as an alternative representative of the United States to the U.N. Security Council, SouthFloridaGayNews.com reported.

Grenell has been a prominent voice for gay Republicans and has worked for a number of GOP politicians, including New York Governor George Pataki, former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and San Diego Mayor Susan Golding.

Just at the time when evangelical voters were beginning to reconcile with their reservations about Romney's Mormon religion, this appointment gives many of those same voters additional pause.

Bryan Fischer, however, host of conservative talk-show Focal Point, expressed that this decision makes it clear that Romney cannot be considered a conservative candidate….

…The Mormon church officially defends the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and counts homosexual behavior as sinful.

"Now, if you don't agree with your church, then why should the evangelical community – why should the pro-family community – give you any support whatsoever?" Fischer added.

Here is Romney from June of last year talking with Piers Morgan about his views on homosexuality as a Mormon.



The second thing that indicated the etch-a-sketch was shaking came out of the mouth of RINO John McCain, who has endorsed Romney. He already seems to be painting Romney as someone who supports Immigration reform.

Via HuffPo:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday defended former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as an advocate for immigration reform, despite glossing over the fact that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a key piece of comprehensive reform.

"He's already said that immigration reform is something that he's committed to," McCain told reporters, in response to a question about whether Romney should make the issue a bigger focus of his campaign.

McCain, who unsuccessfully tried to advance comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2007 with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), demurred when asked about Romney's opposition to creating a pathway to citizenship. That provision was a central piece of the McCain-Kennedy bill, along with a guest worker program and DREAM Act provisions.

"He said that he's committed to immigration reform," McCain said of Romney. "I think that's a pretty good statement."

The Arizona senator became agitated when asked about Romney having said he supports a self-deportation policy, whereby illegal immigrants would voluntarily go back to their country of origin and then apply for U.S. citizenship.

"No he hasn't. He's said that's one of the options he's looked at," McCain said. "So don't put words in his mouth."

Uh, perhaps Mr. McCain should go back and watch some of the debates where Romney absolutely did say he supports self-deportation.



Shake your booty Etch-a-sketch.

Video: Michele Bachmann latest Victim of 'Glitter' Attack

Go figure. It's a leftwing tactic to throw glitter on conservative politicians. Aside from almost assuredly having some obvious emotional issues, this gay activist either didn't bring enough glitter or didn't get nearly close enough to Bachmann after the latter made a speech in her home state. In fact, to the untrained eye, the attempt actually carried an air of ticker-tape style celebration. After the incident, the gay activist was asked about why she would do such a thing and why glitter has become the new weapon of choice for the gay left.

Her answer was the same thing Lucifer might say: To 'Celebrate Pride.'



h/t Weasel Zippers

Eric Holder's DOMA Problem

This is my biggest problem with Eric Holder's argument for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on grounds that it isn't Constitutional. The argument that DOMA is unconstitutional is an extremely valid one; the argument that the definition of marriage should be left to the states is an extremely valid one. At its essence, that is the argument made by Holder and Obama. The problem is it is beyond disingenuous for this administration to seize the mantle of the Constitution in any of its arguments.

For example, just this week, Eric Holder said that prosecuting the Black Panthers case 'demeans' his 'people' because it apparently pales in comparison to what blacks have suffered in the past. There's a problem with that and it's the Fifteenth Amendment, which says the following:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Tack onto that the fact that despite video evidence that Planned Parenthood was enabling the furtherance of underage sex trafficking, Holder announced that he will not prosecute despite the group being federally funded.

Via TPM:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the FBI has declined to prosecute in connection with a series of incidents where a man entered Planned Parenthood and claimed to be a pimp operating a sex trafficking ring. Those incidents were later revealed to be part of a video "sting" by the anti-abortion group LiveAction.

"It is my understanding that the FBI actually has looked at that matter" and "prosecution was declined in that matter," Holder's commented in a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee.

So the Department of Justice will not investigate crimes against children perpetrated by an organization that receives federal funds and it will not enforce the Fifteenth Amendment but it will argue that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Disgraceful.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND GAY MARRIAGE

I shamefully admit that I used to be a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. That is, until 2004, when he broke his long-standing rule not to engage in political partisanship and threw his support behind John Kerry. In hindsight, I should have known that Springsteen is the typical liberal. One who feigns indifference while espousing values all can relate to. However, when controversy erupted over his Born in the U.S.A. album over whether or not it was anti-American, such musings were dismissed and Springsteen played the middle of the road, refusing to tip his hand to what the true meaning of the song was.

Those not blinded by admiration for a man who could put on a great show knew exactly what he was saying with his words while those who ignored the message and instead chose to revel in his ability to perform and entertain scoffed at the notion that he meant anything other than what they wanted him to mean.

Springsteen's true colors began to show brighter in 2000 when the song, "41 Shots" was released. Law enforcement officers nationwide had a problem with his glorifying of a victim on the wrong end of a shootout with police. Again, fans of Springsteen interpreted the song in a way that didn't do that because that would be wrong. Those fans rationalized the obvious and just sang along as if the officers who objected didn't "get it".

In reality, those officers "got it" just fine and Springsteen continued to come out from under the rock he wanted to use to protect himself from being viewed as the ideological whack job he truly was. Somewhere along the way, he stopped caring about public perception and decided to cast that rock aside.

On December 9th, the NY DAILY NEWS wrote about Springsteen's support of gay marriage. I was struck personally by the photo of Springsteen shaking Barack Obama's hand while looking completely ridiculous wearing rainbow-colored suspenders. He was either embarrassingly showing his support of gay marriage or imitating Mork.

Obviously, Springsteen was doing the former. However, the question I have is to what extent does he support gay marriage and to what extent does he support homosexuality.

In 1998, when I was still a big fan, Springsteen released an album called, "Tracks". It featured a bunch of songs Bruce had recorded but never released - B sides if you will. I remember at the time questioning my own assumptions about Springsteen whenever I heard one of the songs. It was called, "My Lover Man". I tried on many occasions to rationalize it, thinking that maybe it was one of the outtakes from the movie, "Philadelphia" starring Tom Hanks, who portrayed a homosexual with Aids. Maybe it was him trying to understand a view he didn't understand. Believe me, rationalizing this song to mean something other than a writer that espoused homosexuality is a stretch by any measure.

Listen for yourself.



It's a shame such a talented man is such a mess.

GOSH DOG!!!