Victory for Academic Freedom: Jury Rules UNC-Wilmington Retaliated Against Conservative Professor

Townhall.com:

A jury in North Carolina on Thursday found that the University of North Carolina-Wilmington retaliated against criminology professor Dr. Mike Adams for his political and social views. 

Adams, a Townhall columnist, explained last year that despite his track record of success at the university in terms of teaching, research and service, he was denied a promotion to full professor because of the views he advanced in his opinion columns. He described the promotion process as being “replete with procedural irregularities and with direct criticism of [his] columns and [his] beliefs.” 

The ACLJ, who represented Adams along with Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Travis Barham, explains further: 

When Dr. Adams submitted his application for full professor, university officials rejected it through the use of a completely-fabricated promotion standard, passed along false and misleading information about his academic record, explicitly considered the content of his protected speech in promotion documents, and – incredibly – allowed a professor who’d filed a false criminal complaint against Dr. Adams to cast a vote against his application.


“[N]o individual loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit wrote in 2011. “Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality. Such topics plainly touched on issues of public, rather than private, concern.” 

The university hired Adams, a former atheist, in 1993 as an assistant professor, and promoted him to associate professor in 1998. The “campaign of academic persecution that culminated in his denial of promotion to full professor” began when he converted to Christianity in 2000, which greatly influenced his views on social and political issues. 

“We are grateful that the jury today reaffirmed the fundamental principle that universities are a marketplace of ideas, not a place where professors face retaliation for having a different view than university officials,” Barham said. 

“The jury saw what we have long known to be true about the wrong done to Dr. Adams,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “The verdict is a powerful message for academic freedom and free speech at America’s public universities.” 

Update: According to the ACLJ, the verdict was only for liability. The judge will later decide Adams' relief. 

RELATED:  Teachers Union Contract Gave "Special Consideration" to Non-Christians

Federal Judge Defies Eric Holder: Yes, Arizona and Kansas Can Require Voters To Prove Their Citizenship

How about coming to America the right way? After all illegal is illegal and other countries around the world don't allow a tenth of the crap illegals get away with here:

Under the oh so august leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama administration has been doing their very best to thwart various states in their individual endeavors to implement voter ID laws. In this latest iteration of that ongoing battle, the Federal Election Assistance Commission has so far refused to help state officials in Kansas and Arizona change federal election registration forms to include proof of citizenship. 

Both states have new voter-ID measures measures that require new voters to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other documentation to prove their citizenship, while the federal registration form only requires that new voters sign a statement declaring that they are citizens. On Wednesday, a federal judge basically told the Obama administration to stop deliberately getting in the states’ way on this one, via the LA Times:

A federal judge has ruled that Kansas and Arizona should be allowed to require voters to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship, in a case closely watched by both sides dealing with the question of voter eligibility.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren in Wichita, Kan., ruled that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission had no legal authority to deny requests from the two states to add the citizenship requirement. In the ruling, released Wednesday, he ordered the commission to revise the national form immediately. …

“This is a huge victory for the states of Kansas and Arizona,” Kobach said in a prepared statement emailed to reporters. “They have successfully protected our sovereign right to set and enforce the qualifications for registering to vote. We have now paved the way for all 50 states to protect their voter rolls and ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote.”

“Today’s decision is an important victory for the people of Arizona against the Obama administration, assuring that only Arizona residents and not illegals vote in Arizona elections,” Arizona Atty. Gen. Tom Horne said in a statement.

“Only Arizona residents and not illegals”? Well, that of course is just ridiculous, because as we know perfectly well by now — we know, because progressives continuously tell us so — voter fraud is absolutely not a real thing. Voter-ID laws are just vacuous excuses made up by Republicans in order to maliciously disenfranchise minority voters. “Proof of citizenship” requirement? Ha! I mean, can you say “racist dog whistle”?

RELATED:  Holder: Sure, “we’re not opposed to photo identification in a vacuum” — just when it comes to voting, really

Ugandan President Calls Homosexuality 'Disgusting', Correctly Calls Being Gay "Unnatural" And Not A Human Right

Isn't it always funny when a morally-bankrupt, sex-obsessed, pedophile-enabling, deviance-loving country being taken over by Godless, white liberals tells other people how they should live?

President Yoweri Museveni, who made anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda much tougher Monday, told CNN in an exclusive interview that sexual behavior is a matter of choice and gay people are "disgusting."

After signing the bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, Museveni told CNN's Zain Verjee that, in his view, being homosexual is "unnatural" and not a human right.

"They're disgusting. What sort of people are they?" he said. "I never knew what they were doing. I've been told recently that what they do is terrible. Disgusting. But I was ready to ignore that if there was proof that that's how he is born, abnormal. But now the proof is not there."

Museveni had commissioned a group of Ugandan government scientists to study whether homosexuality is "learned," concluding that it is a matter of choice.

"I was regarding it as an inborn problem," he said. "Genetic distortion -- that was my argument. But now our scientists have knocked this one out."

Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, wrote an open letter to the Ugandan scientists in the New York Times last week urging them to reconsider and revise their report. Among his responses to their conclusions: "There is no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a learned behavior any more than is heterosexual orientation."

Museveni, whose public position on the measure changed several times, signed the bill into law at a public event Monday. The bill was introduced in 2009 and originally included a death penalty clause for some homosexual acts.

The nation's Parliament passed the bill in December, replacing the death penalty provision with a proposal of life in prison for "aggravated homosexuality." This includes acts in which one person is infected with HIV, "serial offenders" and sex with minors, according to Amnesty International.

The new law also includes punishment -- up to seven years in prison -- for people and institutions who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, language that was not in the 2009 version of the bill.

Lawmakers in the conservative nation said the influence of Western lifestyles risked destroying family units.

The bill also proposed prison terms for anyone who counsels or reaches out to gays and lesbians, a provision that could ensnare rights groups and others providing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The White House issued a statement Monday: "Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice, and equal rights for its people, today, regrettably, Ugandan President Museveni took Uganda a step backward by signing into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality."

The statement continued: "As President Obama has said, this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay community in Uganda, it reflects poorly on the country's commitment to protecting the human rights of its people and will undermine public health, including efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. We will continue to urge the Ugandan government to repeal this abhorrent law and to advocate for the protection of the universal human rights of LGBT persons in Uganda and around the world."

RELATED:  Uganda 11th African state to tighten gay laws

New York Times Champions Gay Men's Surrogate Child Purchase For the 'Post Marriage-Equality World'

Newsbusters.org:

In an utterly typical flourish, the front of the "Thursday Styles" section of The new York Times featured two gay men and a tot over the headline "And Surrogacy Makes 3: Surrogate baby-making, through restricted in many states, has been growing among gay men."

Times reporter Anemona Hartocollis told the utterly unopposed story of New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman and his partner David Sigal with their daughter, Silvia Hoylman-Sigal. In New York, Sen. Hoylman is trying to make it easier for gays to use surrogates for their "fundamentally conservative embrace of family values." Their baby story "carries with it an extra frisson of the illicit that seems to them more than a little archaic and unfair in the post marriage-equality world."

Hoylman and Sigal had to travel to California to create a surrogate baby, since commercial surrogacy contracts have been illegal in New York since the "notorious Baby M case of the 1980s." Mary Beth Whitehead kept her child after the pregnancy. Now they're trying to repeal that law:

Surrogate baby-making has long been a path taken by the affluent and celebrities, partly because it takes good legal advice and money to accomplish. But in recent years, it has been growing among gay men, who in a fundamentally conservative embrace of family values, see having children and building a family as the logical next step after getting married.

“Not to be cliché, but you know how the phrase goes — first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby and the baby carriage,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has endorsed the bill. 

The bill’s supporters argue that it makes no sense for New York, which has a large number of fertility clinics, not to mention a flourishing gay community, not to be able to offer commercial surrogacy to those who want it. And they say that making surrogacy more widely available could reduce the exorbitant costs, easily as much as $100,000 per baby. 

In Mr. Hoylman and Mr. Sigal’s case, neither of their parents expected them to have children. “Now they think he’s a family man,” Mr. Sigal said, grinning at his husband.
“It’s a funny phrase,” Mr. Hoylman said. “This is what it takes for people to relate to you.” 

Mr. Hoylman says views on his Facebook page spike when he puts up pictures of their daughter, Silvia, now 3, but not when he puts up photographs of him and his husband without her. 

The bill’s co-sponsors could hardly offer a more perfect vision of the surrogacy constituency. Mr. Hoylman, who took his Senate office last year, represents the heart of gay New York, in the Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen. The Assembly sponsor, Amy Paulin, who actually originated the bill, is from wealthy Scarsdale. 

The Times can't even be liberal enough to balance this out with someone complaining from outside the One Percent that surrogacy's only for the wealthy. Surrogacy subsidies can't be far off. The positive buzz continued, about how surrogate mothers prefer growing babies for the gay men:

Agencies prefer to contract with surrogates who are married with children, because they have a proven ability to have a healthy baby and are less likely to have second thoughts about giving up the child. 

Conversely, gay couples are popular among surrogates. “Most of my surrogates want same-sex couples,” said Darlene Pinkerton, the owner of A Perfect Match, the agency in San Diego that Mr. Hoylman used. Women unable to become pregnant often go through feelings of jealousy and loss, she said. But with gay men, that is not part of the dynamic, so “the experience is really positive for the surrogate.” 

Or as her husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, put it, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”

RELATED: Of Bakers and Beliefs: Kirsten Powers’ Faith-Work Disconnect

Arizona Religious Freedom Bill Riles Gay Rights Supporters

Townhall.com:

The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday evening to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.

Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. 

One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.

Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination defense.

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.

"I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."

The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.

The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

RELATED:  Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

Rev. Franklin Graham Blasts Churches for Weak Support of Phil Robertson in ‘Religious War Against Christians’

Mediaite.com:

The Rev. Franklin Graham took to his website on December 30 to severely scold the Christian community for failing to show sufficient support for Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and for not sticking up for the values expressed in comments which resulted in his brief suspension. Graham said that there is a “religious war” being waged against Christians, and churches have a duty to take a stand against it.


“As the Robertson controversy winds down—at least for now—I have been amazed at how many churches have apparently “ducked” out on the issue (sin). Some were even quick to condemn Phil Robertson,” Graham wrote.

“If we Christians banded together and took a stand, perhaps we wouldn’t be losing so much ground in what the media is calling the ‘cultural war,’” Graham continued. “However, it is not a cultural war—it is a religious war against Christians and the biblical truths we stand for. Some churches have fallen into the trap of being politically correct, under the disguise of tolerance.”

Graham said that the statements Robertson have been cast in the press as “intolerant” but they were, in his opinion, only “not tolerant of sin.” He added that the Bible’s message of penitence and repentance was a positive message and Robertson’s comments reflected this sentiment. 

RELATED:  What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

Dave Wilson, White Candidate Who Pretended to Be Black to CNN: Only ‘Liberal News Media’ Feels Deceived

The more you find out about this guy, the more you gotta love him. When it comes to voting Black people in this country are such a non-thinking, monolithic group, in this case, they deserve to duped:

Dave Wilson, a Texas Republican who beat a 24-year Democratic incumbent last week by implying strongly in his campaign literature that he was black, appeared on CNN’s New Day on Tuesday morning where anchor Chris Cuomo grilled him over his “campaign of evasion” and deception.


“I wanted to run this campaign on the issues, not my skin color,” Wilson said when asked why he didn’t put his image on campaign literature. “Because it was an African-American district, I didn’t feel like putting my picture on any of those brochures would get me any votes.”

When asked if he was being deceptive, Wilson replied that he was using targeting marketing practices. “You can’t sell maternity clothes to a bunch of men,” he added. 

“Shouldn’t the voter know who you really are?” Cuomo asked. 

Wilson replied that he had appeared at a number of public events and his campaign’s YouTube page features him speaking to local voters. Wilson added that his opponent circulated images of him with “inflammatory, racist” comments which were designed to inform voters of his background. 

“Didn’t you kind of stain your own victory here?” Cuomo probed. “You wound up winning the race anyway. Don’t you wish you would have done it in a way that wouldn’t call into the legitimacy question?”

“I think people in that district are not getting enough credit in their intelligence and who they’re voting for,” Wilson replied. He said that voters were making a statement about their incumbent when they elected him. 

Cuomo pressed Wilson to concede he was attempting to mislead voters with a “ploy” to suggest he was endorsed by a popular black Congressman from the area when he was not. Wilson conceded that this tactic was a ploy, but he didn’t appeal to that before he was attacked by his opponent in a “racist” manner. 

Cuomo asked again if Wilson would admit that he wanted to “cloud the judgment” of voters about his race.

Wilson refused to admit to this charge. “I wanted to focus that race on issues,” he said. 

“Doesn’t it all add up to a little bit of a campaign of evasion, to be honest?” Cuomo asked. 

“I live in that district,” Wilson replied with a laugh. “The people that said they’re deceived is my opponent, Bruce Austin, and the liberal news media.”

RELATED: David Wilson: No deception, just ‘sales job’

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/27/13

Witness To Benghazi Recounts Attack

Barack Obama Knew US Spies Were Targeting Angela Merkel

How Can I Get My Kids To Go To Church?

Marriage And Abortion Are Economic Issues

Howard Dean: GOP Also To Blame For Botched Obamacare Rollout

Chris Christie: I Never Hugged Obama

Chris Wallace and Brit Hume Skewer Juan Williams For Defending Obamacare

Fringe Factor: End Homosexuality With a Class Action Lawsuit

Al Gore Strikes Out Again 

TV Has To Be At Least 42 Percent Gay?

Media Hounds Sports Team To Become Politically Correct  

Corporate Executives Join Soros-Backed 'Fly-In' Campaign to Push Amnesty

Harlem Pastors Join Forces To Oust Al Sharpton

Tired of powerful ambulance-chaser, hypocrite, fraudster, criminal, sellout, serial liar, white liberal agenda advocate, racial huckster, Obamabot, MSNBC host and "gay rights" supporter Al Sharpton garnering all the local attention from the mainstream press, while ignoring the real plights plaguing the black community, some Harlem pastors have come together to speak truth to "Reverend" Al Sharpton's ignorane and end his long run as 'Speaker of the Black Community':

Four pastors lobbying for change in the Harlem community of Manhattan, N.Y., have gone on the warpath with civil rights leader and religious minister the Rev. Al Sharpton and have invited more than 100 churches to join them in dethroning him from his political seat for his failure to lead on local issues.

"While (Sharpton) is jet-setting around the country, people are going to our churches saying they don't have money to eat," Pastor Johnnie Green, 51, of Mount Neboh Baptist Church on Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard told the New York Daily News. "People need somebody to fight for them."

As a result of the situation, Greene and several other pastors in the community have banded together to create a coalition of black ministers called Speak Out Say It Loud, which seeks to build a united African American power base with citywide influence.

The coalition, which includes Carl Washington of New Mount Zion Baptist Church on W. 140th Street, Kris Erskine of Bethany Baptist Church on W. 153rd Street and Patrick Young of First Baptist Church of East Elmhurst, Queens, will be pushing their gospel of rebellion at a rally slated for Oct. 24, according to a Facebook event page.

"We are the church and our voice shall be heard to the benefit of our community. Join more than 100 pastors and congregations assembling at the Mount Neboh Baptist Church to Speak Out about the deplorable conditions of our community and the injustice against our people. The church is still the church and with God we have miraculous power," read the announcement on the page.

The ministers, who expect about 1,500 people to show up for the event, said Sharpton is nothing more than a personality who has been spending more time promoting his new book, The Rejected Stone and his show on MSNBC.

"Sharpton isn't a community organizer. He's a personality," Raymond Blanchette, head bishop of the United Churches for Kingdom Building told the New York Daily News.

But the seasoned political minister charged that there was no need for a fight: "We need to attack the issues, not each other," Sharpton told the News. "If you want to be the big guy, be the big guy, be that. Don't act like I'm not doing anything local. I am."

"I run a civil rights organization," Sharpton added. "They're not going to do what I do. ... I don't run a church organization."

RELATED:  During Heated Interview, Sharpton Explodes on GOP Rep. Over Shutdown: ‘You’re in Denial!’

The Little Sisters of the Poor are First Group To File Suit Against Obama's HHS Mandate

Fighting back against the most anti-Christian President of our times:

On September 24, 2013, the Little Sisters of the Poor became the first group to file a class-action lawsuit against the HHS Mandate, saying that they would be unable to comply with the requirement to provide employees with free access to birth control, sterilization, and abortifacients. 

The Little Sisters of the Poor are a Roman Catholic congregation of women religious that was founded in 1839 by Saint Jeanne Jugan. The mission of the order “is to offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ, cared for as a family and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to himself.” The order is international and present in more than 30 countries. 

The Little Sisters of the Poor own and operate nursing homes and assisted living residences as part of their mission to care for the elderly poor. There are 30 of these homes in the United States alone. 

Although there was a well-publicized “religious employers exception” to the HHS Mandate, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not considered to be religious enough to qualify. According to the exception, an employer only qualifies as a “religious” employer if they only employ and serve people of the same religion. As the Little Sisters of the Poor care for everybody regardless of their religious affiliation, they are not considered to be a “religious” employer, despite being a community of religious sisters. 

The Little Sisters of the Poor believe that all life is valuable, and that their religious beliefs prohibit them from distributing contraceptives or abortion-causing drugs.

“Like all of the Little Sisters, I have vowed to God and the Roman Catholic Church that I will treat all life as valuable, and I have dedicated my life to that work,” explained Sister Loraine Marie, Superior for one of the three U.S. provinces in the Congregation. “We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government’s program to provide access to abortion inducing drugs.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor. The order will face fines from the IRS unless an agreement is made. The Little Sisters of the Poor are the first benefits providers who have filed suit against the Mandate. 

RELATED:  Study: Yes, Obamacare Will Raise Premiums Significantly

Brian Johnson, Evangelical Christian, Allowed To Distribute Bibles At Minneapolis Gay Pride Festival

A small victory for conservatives and those of us that know homosexuality to be a sin:

In the midst of a four-year legal battle with the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a Wisconsin man has been grated the right to once again distribute bibles at at the city's annual Gay Pride Festival in Loring Park next year.

Brian Johnson, a Wisconsin taxidermist, reportedly began distributing bibles with his family at the Twin Cities' annual Gay Pride Festival in 1998 with no complaints or instances of police intervention. However, festival organizers told Johnson in 2009 that he would not be allowed to distribute bibles and that the park was "private property" for that day. When he refused to leave, he was arrested. The charges were later dropped.
Johnson's legal battle over his place at the Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival since this arrest has been complicated.

After being turned away again in 2010, festival organizers appeared to side with Johnson, reportedly ruling that both his presence and bible distribution were protected under the First Amendment. This led to organizers for the Gay Pride Festival suing the Minneapolis Park Board in support of Johnson's First Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim imposed a compromise, stating: “In theory, Twin Cities Pride could designate ‘free-speech zones’ on the Pride Festival grounds in which anyone who wishes to distribute literature or display signage may do so.”

Both sides agreed and Johnson's distribution of religious propaganda was delegated to a booth in a "no pride zone," allowing him to return to the 2011 festival.

Nate Kellum, Johnson's attorney, reportedly noted, 

[The area] was a tract of land in a corner of the park where nobody would ever go because it was not part of a festival.... The government should not be exiling free speech, it should be protecting it... it’s ridiculous to say that the only place where people can hand out Bibles is an area where there’s no one to hand Bibles to. The Constitution simply does not permit the board to relegate free speech to isolated regions where no one can receive the message. That’s not free speech at all. It’s pure censorship.

Kellum appealed the ruling that confined Johnson to a booth to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and won Johnson an emergency injunction that allowed him to distribute bibles at the 2012 and 2013 Minneapolis pride events.

While Johnson's case against the Minneapolis Park Board has not been settled, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed an additional injunction last week that will allow him to disseminate bibles at the 2014 gay pride event while his case moves forward.

"I do this once a year," said Johnson. "I talk to people about the love of Jesus Christ." 

Kellum reportedly stated that he feels "very optimistic" that the court will rule in favor of Johnson.

RELATED:  Maggie Gallagher, Leading Gay Marriage Opponent: 'I Would Love Nothing More Than To Be Wrong'

Politiks As Usual: In The News 9/15/13

Maryland Counties Join Movement to Secede from Largely Democrat-run State

On The Redskins Name Controversy 

California To Legalize Non-Physician Abortions

Senate Committee Passes Shield Law Defining “Journalist”

Congress: Hillary’s Benghazi Investigation Let Top Officials Escape Blame

Are Blacks Names ‘Weird,’ or Are You Just Racist? 

Airman Claiming Religious Discrimination Mirandized, May Face Court Martial

Matthew Shepard Narrative Challenged in New Book 

Bill Cosby Was Right: ‘Very Strong’ Statistical Link Between Fatherlessness, Gun Homicides 

Free Speech For Sports...But Not Gay Retorts? 

Barack Obama, the 98-pound Weakling

The 10 Best FCC Complaints Against Miley Cyrus’ MTV VMA’s Performance

WNBA Player Sophia Young Stands Up To Gay Mafia, Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

USAToday.com:

Sophia Young, a forward for the WNBA's San Antonio Silver Stars, spoke out against an LGBT anti-discrimination bill in San Antonio on Wednesday.

Young, who is out for the season with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in her right knee, tweeted her views against the bill, saying that the city shouldn't support same-sex marriage. She also participated in a pray-in-protest movement.

While the WNBA supported Young's right to speak, the league didn't condone her viewpoint.

"Sophia has the right to express her point of view, however, I do not share her view," WNBA President Laurel Richie said in a statement. "The WNBA supports diversity and we are committed to the equal and fair treatment of all people."

RELATED:  Liz Cheney: ‘I Am Not Pro-Gay Marriage’

Fox News Host Gregg Jarrett Fox News Host Defiantly Refers to Chelsea Manning as ‘Bradley’

Just because you "feel" that you're not the gender that God made you or purchase hormones to undergo a "sex change" doesn't change the natural selection process, much less move a 'Y' chromosone to an 'X' or vice versa. And screw the traitor Bradley Manning for demanding that anyone listen to him:

On Fox News’ American Newsroom today, host Gregg Jarrett invited former prosecutor Annemarie McAvoy on to discuss the possibility that Chelsea Manning might sue the federal government if not provided access to hormone therapy. Jarrett continued to refer to Manning, who announced yesterday that she would be living as a female, as “Bradley” and used the masculine pronoun “he.”
After the segment, Jarrett defended this usage:

People out there, don’t send me angry emails that I refered to him as Bradley and not Chelsea and him instead of her. I don’t do what Bradley Manning wants me to do. So thanks very much.

RELATED: 'When Did Chelsea Manning Become Chelsea Manning?' Time Asks in All Seriousness

5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives

Townhall.com:

Contrary to what you hear from liberals, the biggest flaw conservatives have is being overly tolerant. Really? Seriously? We're "overly tolerant?"
Absolutely.
Conservatives will listen to a Hollywood star trash us as intolerant and then we'll go watch his movie anyway. Musicians will openly support Obama and call us racists; yet we'll still buy their albums. Corporations will bend over backwards to undermine everything we hold dear and then we'll turn right around and buy their products. Conservatives make up 40% of all Americans and if we start letting our values dictate where we spend our money, we can transform America's culture in a hurry. Our money spells the difference between a blockbuster and a flop, a hit single or a bust, and a corporate CEO ending up on the cover of Business Week or looking for a new job. You want to even the playing field in America? Then stop propping up corporations that want to destroy everything you hold dear. When a company does something you don't like, close your wallet until management gets the idea. When your money talks, corporations listen. Here are five easy ones to get you started.

1) Chrysler: It's bad enough that Obama spent billions of dollars of your money to prop up the fat cats at Chrysler, but after the crooked deal was done, United Auto Workers ended up owning 55% of the company. In other words, every time you buy a car from Chrysler, your money is helping to prop up a liberal union that works non-stop to elect as many liberal Democrats as possible. Chrysler isn't a corporation with a liberal union attached; it's a liberal union with a corporation attached to it.

2) Progressive Insurance: Peter Lewis is the Chairman of Progressive Insurance Companies and outside of George Soros, he may be the biggest liberal sugar daddy on the block. This former close friend of Ted Kennedy has poured tens of millions of dollars into the ACLU, America Coming Together, and MoveOn, among other liberal causes. So, why not get your auto insurance from a company that isn’t working to destroy the American way of life?

3) Capital One: Having someone like Alec Baldwin as your spokesman just screams, "We don't want conservative customers." This is the same Alec Baldwin who has said, "Gingrich is a cranky history professor. Romney is better suited for country club president. Obama sees what govt’s priorities should be. Obama...2012" and "Until Limbaugh gets real, weans himself off the big salary and runs for office, he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America." Why give money to a company that holds you in such contempt that it would hire a man like this as its spokesman?

4) Starbucks: Do you really need overpriced coffee from a corporation that detests traditional marriage? Not only is Starbucks pro-gay marriage, but when a shareholder complained that boycotts over gay marriage were costing the company money, "Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz responded...by telling him that he could, ’sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.’” If you're a Christian or just someone who believes in traditional marriage, the CEO of Starbucks is publicly saying he doesn't want your business. Can't you find your coffee somewhere else where you aren't forced to swallow Starbucks’ disdain for you along with your Java?

5) The AARP: Despite the fact that its membership opposed Obamacare because it would destroy our healthcare system, the AARP supported that abomination because it is going to make a killing marketing insurance under the bill. It’s also doing more than any other organization to block entitlement reform, which is making it practically impossible to keep America from sliding into bankruptcy. On top of all that, AARP is a left-wing organization that has backed gun control and Planned Parenthood while fighting against a Balanced Budget Amendment. You might as well just give your money directly to the Democrat Party as to the AARP.

RELATED:  Leftists like Wonkette attack conservatives, coddle Islamists

Russia Rejects the Homosexual Agenda

RenewAmerica.com:

Finally, a prominent nation is taking on the homosexual agenda and rejecting it outright. A number of African nations have done the same, but third-world countries are not newsworthy to mainstream media. Although recently, the President of Senegal (West Africa), Mackey Sall, was reported as rebuffing Barack Obama's haughty insistence that Senegalese embrace homosexuality.

The irony is stunning that a Communist nation would understand that preserving the value of men and women marrying and producing children makes for demographic survival, while many American Christian leaders cower in the shadows, in fear of activist homosexuals and their leftist supporters.

For any but the most rabidly liberal, the decision of Russian lawmakers is about as sensible as it gets. Adults can choose to act in whatever manner the culture in which they live allows. And a rotted culture allows many abominable behaviors. Children, on the other hand, are at the mercy of adults around them. They are mentally, physically, and emotionally unable to protect themselves.

The Russian law calls for protecting children (minors) from the indoctrination of adults who would use them for their own ends. It states that fines will be imposed on any who propagandize non-traditional sexual relations among minors through dissemination of information that encourages such relations. Additionally, acts of encouraging a distorted perception of equivalence between traditional and non-traditional sexual behavior is banned. The anti-God types, of course, are screaming "discrimination" and "anti-gay," their clarion call to gin up support and sympathy, but the Russians are having none of it. Thank God.

Everybody knows that part of the homosexual agenda in America, and every country in the world where the practice is pushed, is to indoctrinate the young to the lifestyle. If not to encourage the behavior as normal and to turn a few to practicing the lifestyle, at least to shape liberal perceptions of homosexuality in those young people when they become adults.

Liberal control of the American education system has seen to it that indoctrination to homosexual behavior runs from pre-school through university experience. Especially is this indoctrination aimed at young blacks, because blacks, on the whole (steeped in Christian teachings), are least likely to embrace the homosexual agenda. The deliberate destruction of the black family by the liberal left is part of the effort to change this thinking.

Another interesting development in events of late is the display of sheer hypocrisy by Barack Obama. He appeared on the Jay Leno Show and castigated the Russians for their stance on homosexuality. The architect of much of America's current moral decline insisted that he would not tolerate any country that does not give homosexuals the rights that he deems they should have. He even went so far as to refuse a meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin (can we say "small minded"?).

Is anybody holding his breath to hear Obama call out the vast majority of Muslim nations, who adhere to Islam, on their stance on homosexuality? We all know that Obama is found of Muslims and Islam (not so much Christians and Judeo-Christianity), so it is unlikely anybody expects equal treatment from him.

Russia and other nations that will not cave to the homosexual agenda and rightfully protect their citizens from its influences, are not known for executing homosexuals. Muslim nations do execute them, and I am certain that Obama is aware of it.

One black minister, Bill Owens of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP), in the group's newsletter, commented on the homosexual activists' response to Russia's decision. And by extension, on Obama's response.

"Friend, this response from the homosexual community is absurd. Since when does America have the right to force its immorality, depravity, and sin on another nation? We are currently witnessing the free fall of our nation. Over the past five years, we've moved from a super power position to a nation that is perceived to be weak and contemptible." (Bold emphasis in the original statement.)

I say "cheers" to the Russians on this one. That nation will probably outlive America.

RELATED: Rebuking Vladimir Putin in Public Will Not Solve Obama's Problems

House Republicans Announce Hearing on IRS Targeting Conservative Groups

FOXNews.com:

The IRS acknowledging that it targeted conservative political groups during the 2012 election season has sparked bipartisan calls for investigation -- with House Republicans already saying they will hold a hearing on the issue.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Friday the Republican-led chamber would investigate the tax-collecting agency for flagging the groups for additional review to see whether they were violating their tax-exempt status. 

“The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs,” the Virginia Republican said.

Cantor’s comments were followed within minutes by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp saying he would hold a hearing.

The IRS on Friday apologized for targeting groups, but Camp, R-Mich., argued the agency had “repeatedly denied” such activity.

“The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing,” he said.

The committee has jurisdiction over the IRS, but it remains unclear whether other House committees also will investigate the issue, in which roughly 300 groups were flagged.

Republicans were joined by a leading Senate Democrat in the call for congressional investigations.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said members have already been looking into the IRS's failure to make sure tax-exempt groups engage only in social welfare activities -- not partisan politics.

RELATED: Sarah Palin: ‘Same Corrupt IRS’ That Targeted Conservatives ‘Will Be In Charge Of Enforcing Obamacare’

ESPN's Chris Broussard Provides Christians With The Perfect Response To The Sin That Is Homosexuality

If you're a Christian afraid to speak up in a politically-correct world served up by ignorant, Godless liberals, ESPN's Chris Broussard provides you with the perfect response to the Gay Mafia and other liberal terrorists out there (it should be noted too that co-host DJ Envy, who lamely renounces Broussard's remarks at the end of this interview, recently admitted to cheating on his wife of 18 years with a D-list reality-TV star) who defend and endorse homosexuality and a host of other sins. Remember folks, no Christian claims to be perfect and "tolerance" is a two-way street.

Leave Liberal Hollywood to the Liberals

Townhall.com:

"We need to buy a movie studio."

Amid the umpteen conferences, panels, meetings and informal conversations in the wake of the presidential election, this idea has been a near constant among conservatives who feel like the country is slipping through their fingers. Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee combined raised just more than $1 billion, and all we got are these lousy T-shirts. Since conservatives are losing the culture, goes the argument, which in turn leads to losing at politics, maybe that money could be better spent on producing some cultural ammo of our own?

It's a bad idea.

Let's first acknowledge that Hollywood is overwhelmingly, though not uniformly, liberal. Hollywood constitutes a major part of the Democratic Party's financial base and, arguably, the constituency liberal politicians fear -- and revere -- most. That's why all of the post-Newtown talk of the Obama administration "going after Hollywood violence" was nonsense from the outset.

In August, New York magazine's Jonathan Chait wrote an interesting essay arguing that the right-wing culture vultures of the 1990s were essentially right: Hollyweird really was eroding traditional conservative values. A committed liberal, Chait is grateful for this effort: "We liberals owe not a small measure of our success to the propaganda campaign of a tiny, disproportionately influential cultural elite."

Chait makes a strong case. But just as there's a problem with conservatives drawing straight lines from the silver screen to social decay, there's a problem with drawing similarly unwavering lines to progressive triumph.

Hollywood produces culture, but it also takes its orders from it. For instance, according to today's pieties, the gun is an evil right-wing talisman. And yet, every year Hollywood vomits up a stream of films that cast guns as the solution to any manner of problems. Martial arts stars notwithstanding, you'll be hard-pressed to find an action movie in which the star's most trusted sidekick isn't his gun.

During the Bush years, Hollywood tried valiantly to do its part by churning out big box-office antiwar movies. It consistently failed. Liberal frustration grew so intense, then-L.A. Times columnist Patrick Goldstein celebrated James Cameron's sci-fi extravaganza "Avatar" as proof Americans really do like liberal movies with, among other things, antiwar themes. "Avatar," according to Goldstein, also proved that the global-warming message sells. And yet, after not just "Avatar" but "The Day After Tomorrow," the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (not to mention academic and media drum-beating), a 2012 Pew poll found that most Americans still don't buy that global warming is caused by humans.

The point isn't that Hollywood has no influence. It's just that its influence is agonizingly hard to predict or dismiss as unthinkingly liberal. Studies of "All in the Family" found that viewers in America, and around the globe, took different lessons from the show based on their politics and cultural norms. Despite Norman Lear's liberal best efforts, many found Archie Bunker more persuasive than his "meathead" sociologist son-in-law. HBO's epic series "The Wire" was a near-Marxist indictment of urban liberalism and the drug war, making it quite popular among many conservatives and libertarians. The popular BBC series "Downton Abbey" is shockingly conservative in many respects. The aristocrats are decent, compassionate people, and the staff is, if anything, more happily class-conscious than the blue bloods. And yet, as far as I can tell, liberals love it.

Obviously, the market is a big factor. No doubt many Hollywood liberals would like to push the ideological envelope more, but audiences get a vote. And that vote isn't cast purely on ideological grounds.

There's a difference between art and propaganda. Outside the art house crowd, liberal agitprop doesn't sell. Art must work with the expectations and beliefs of the audience. Even though pregnancies are commonplace on TV, you'll probably never see a hilarious episode of a sitcom in which a character has an abortion -- because abortion isn't funny.

The conservative desire to create a right-wing movie industry is an attempt to mimic a caricature of Hollywood. Any such effort would be a waste of money that would make the Romney campaign seem like a great investment.

RELATED: Top 10 Most Obnoxious Hollywood Liberals

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/21/13

Obama Gears Up For Second Term Ahead of Inauguration Ceremony

The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio 

Conservative Leaders in Short Supply

Soros' Group Tells Chaplains To Boycott Prayer

Justin Bieber's Mom Produces Pro-Life Film

Milbank on Obama's First Term: 'MessiaObama h Never Came'

Winners of the Week: O, Lowe, Stewart, the Voice of Conservatism, and the American Public

Allen West Won't Run Again

Obama Kept 45% Of His First-Term Campaign Promises

Rand Paul Hits Chris Christie for Criticizing NRA Ad, Grandstanding on Sandy Relief Bill