Tag Archives: Rand Paul
Sen. Ted Cruz • 2015 Iowa Faith & Freedom Summit
Hat Tip: BB
The DNA Deniers in the Media
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
The media have launched a major campaign on behalf of the “transgendered.” The Bruce Jenner ABC News interview is the most visible manifestation of this campaign. However, the NBC Nightly News on Wednesday ran a story by Kate Snow about the “transgender grandchild” of Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of Hawaii. Lacking in the coverage is any concrete definition of the term “transgendered” or any discussion of how children are now being used to promote an increasingly bizarre sexual agenda that requires physically mutilating or chemically treating very confused young people.
The Human Rights Campaign, a group co-founded by accused sex offender Terry Bean, a major Democratic Party fundraiser, quickly highlighted this latest NBC News report in a continuing series on “transgender youth.”
However, just like the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual, the word “transgendered” applies to certain behaviors or appearances and does not signify anything scientific or biological about a person.
Regardless of what you may see or read in the media, nature has given humanity two sexes, male and female, which are defined by DNA. People can call themselves anything they want, but the biological facts of life cannot be denied.
This is why, when The Washington Post ran a recent story about a “transgendered” soldier who claims to be a man, the paper noted that the military regards “him” as a “her,” because biologically that is what he really is. You cannot change your DNA.
The point is that those claiming to be one of any number of categories of alleged sexual minorities can accurately be labeled DNA deniers if they deny their fundamental biological identity.
The liberals and their media allies always claim they are in favor of science on matters such as global warming or climate change. But strangely, on the matter of human sexuality, science is denied and people are allowed to make up “facts” about themselves, describing their sexuality in terms that happen to be pleasing to them for any reason at all. A new category is “questioning,” meaning that a person can decide, apparently from day to day, what sexual minority they belong to.
If someone feels he or she is a member of the opposite sex, then that is perfectly acceptable, according to the LGBT community and its supporters.
But facts are facts, and science is science. Even liberal publications have to admit this. “The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female,” notes the Guardian.
But consider the NBC story. Snow referred to Rep. Honda as having “tweeted a photo of himself on Twitter back in February, grinning next to his beautiful 8-year-old granddaughter Malisa…” But Malisa is not a girl. Malisa is biologically a boy. He was born with the name Brody.
Snow reported that the parents “thought their second child would be a boy. But by the time their child was three, she had chosen a new name for herself—Malisa.” A child at the age of three decided to become a girl? Could it be that the child was going through a phase and living in a fantasy? It seems apparent that the child was born a boy and was going through some confusion about his sexual identity. The parents decided to encourage this confusion by allowing the child to now identify as a girl.
Rather than celebrate this bizarre development, the parents should be questioned about their child-rearing skills. What the child (and the parents) may need is serious psychological counseling.
Of course, the homosexuals and their supporters, most notably President Barack Obama, adamantly oppose any kind of change therapy to return troubled young people to their biologically-based sexual orientation.
Snow reported, “Although there are no exact numbers, Malisa joined what experts say is a growing number of children transitioning at a young age.” No exact numbers? Experts? Who are they? This is propaganda masquerading as journalism. It is designed to feed the notion that nature’s determination that humans are born male and female is a gross miscalculation, and that humans can decide whether they are male or female, or whatever.
What Snow is describing is sexual confusion brought on by a culture (and possibly parents) which has obscured the sexual differences between men and women. This is where the homosexual movement has brought our nation.
Snow reports, “The family knows they are just at the beginning of this journey with Malisa, and work closely with a team of doctors. As she approaches puberty, they’ll have to consider whether to use so called puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”
The “puberty blockers” will be designed to stop “Malisa” from being the boy “she” is. They will stop the growth of facial hair and an Adam’s apple. He may also have to undergo some form of sex change surgery or other medical treatment.
Rather than challenge this insidious campaign of making children into pawns of the sexual “liberation” movement, some conservative and Republican politicians on Capitol Hill are voting for measures to in some way “protect” or outlaw alleged “discrimination” against sexual minorities.
For example, ten Republican senators voted for a measure introduced by far left-wing Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) to protect alleged “LGBT homeless youth.” They were Senators Kelly Ayotte (NH), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), Dean Heller (NV), Mark Kirk (IL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rand Paul (KY), Rob Portman (OH), Dan Sullivan (AK) and Pat Toomey (PA).
The term “LGBT homeless youth” is designed to expand the reach of the federal government into yet another area of human activity, based on questionable surveys and experts.
The power of the propaganda emanating from the media has created the perception, even among these Republicans, that this is a major problem that the federal government must address.
Not surprisingly, the homosexual movement was ecstatic. Thanks to those 10 Republicans, the headline over the AP article was, “A Majority Of The Senate Is Voting For LGBT Rights.”
The DNA deniers are on the march, making serious inroads into the national Republican Party.
BOOM: Rating the GOP field on Amnesty
Over at American Thinker, Pedro Gonzales offers an excellent overview of the GOP field’s positions on Amnesty. Here’s the executive summary: only one candidate has never changed his position on the topic.
“…Jeb, as we all know, supports amnesty for illegal aliens, and he’s proud of it. If he were running in Honduras, I would vote for him in a minute…”
“…Rubio co-authored a bill that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens. He has since tried to walk back from that…”
“…Chris has been cagey on the subject, but one thing is clear: he ordered his appointee to Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat to vote for Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill…”
“…Perry is tough on illegal immigrants! He sent a handful of national guard troops to the border! (With orders not to arrest any illegals.) But as for those illegals who manage to slip through this imposing gauntlet, Perry rewards them with taxpayer-subsidized college educations. If he’s paying for illegals to go to college, I think it’s safe to say he supports amnesty…”
“…in February 2007, Huckabee … stated, ‘We shouldn’t have amnesty where we just say, “Fine, everybody’s good, we’re going to let it go.’ We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally…”
“…Walker backed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill in 2006… [and] went as far as to tell POLITICO in 2013 that he supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants…”
“…Paul claims he’s against amnesty, but he voted for an amendment to give 2 million ‘temporary’ visas to illegal aliens annually…who could then apply for citizenship. It looks like amnesty to me…”
“Cruz is the only major candidate who has never supported or endorsed amnesty.”
As they say on the real blogs, read the whole thing.
Ted Cruz: Anti-Christians waging ‘Jihad’ in America (VIDEO)
By: Renee Nal
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is not afraid of offending Christian-bashers or global warming alarmists, for that matter. Referring to those slamming various iterations of Indiana’s “Freedom Restoration Act” as waging a “jihad” against religious liberty, Cruz illustrates yet again that he will not be bullied by intolerant left-wing activists.
Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch reported on Cruz’s statement, proclaiming strangely and inaccurately that Ted Cruz “lashed out at the gay community.” During a panel discussion moderated by Steve Deace with the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, Cruz said in part:
We look at the jihad that is being waged right now in Indiana and Arkansas, going after people of faith who respect the biblical teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Right Wing Watch is a “project” of the radical left-wing “People For the American Way” which proclaims to “expose the agenda of the extreme Right.”
It should be noted that in this author’s opinion, the need for “Religious Liberty” laws is entirely unnecessary as the First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly covers freedom of religion. The First Amendment does not need to be “restored” as it has not been repealed. In fact, such well-intended legislation may contribute to a damaging breakdown of the enduring power of the Bill of Rights.
Cruz continued to say:
We need to bring people together to the religious liberty values that built this country.
Political commentator Trevor Loudon agrees with Cruz’s assessment, as well as the author’s opinion that legislation affirming the First Amendment is unnecessary and as he noted, “concedes ground to the political left.” Loudon, whose book The Enemies Within:Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress is currently being made into a feature documentary, also told Broadside News that “Cruz is a breath of fresh air for American Constitutionalists.”
He [Cruz] tells it like it is and stands boldly and unashamedly for his beliefs. He is one of those ‘rare as hen’s teeth’ politicians who can appeal to both the head and heart of citizens. He has the inspiration factor.
As an aside, Cruz also repeated his position that “school choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”
Matt Wilstein of Mediaite derided Cruz for taking a stand on the matter, stating in part:
Over the course of America’s recent debate on ‘religious freedom’ laws, most potential Republican candidates for president were hesitant to come down too hard in either direction. Jeb Bush appeared to shift his position on the issue and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) more or less ignored it. But not Ted Cruz.
But does he [Cruz] really think that this type of talk is going to lead to him becoming president of the United States?
Watch the video here:
Hat tip: therightscoop.com
This article has been cross-posted at Broadside News.
READY FOR RINO RAND? Mitch McConnell-backing Rand Paul’s Top 12 Embarrassing Flip-Flops
Do we really need a candidate who is so flippant (or so poorly advised) that he is forced to reverse field on a regular basis? And, more importantly, what do his constant backflips say about his principles?
Oh. And don’t even get me started on his support for Mitch McConnell over a true conservative (Matt Bevin) in Kentucky.
Rand Paul Backtracks on Vaccinations
While a measles outbreak was spurring new calls for vaccinations, Paul said in a Feb. 2 TV interview: “I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” … Pediatric groups called the remarks irresponsible, saying the benefits of child vaccines greatly outweigh the risk.
Rand Paul Backtracks on Aid to Israel
Campaigning for a Nebraska Republican in August, Paul sparred with reporters who asked about his earlier calls to end foreign aid to all countries, including Israel… in 2011, Paul proposed a budget that would end all foreign aid, including that for Israel. He defended the position in an ABC News interview at the time.
Rand Paul Backtracks On National Sales Tax Plan
Kentucky’s Republican nominee for Senate, Rand Paul, is running away from his past support for abolishing the federal income tax in favor of a national sales tax… As the [Lexington] Herald-Leader wrote, Paul was on shaky ground when he said he has “never said anything like” support for the fair tax.
Rand Paul backtracks on comments about Cheney and Halliburton
Rand Paul is backtracking after video surfaced last week from 2009 showing him suggesting that former Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to send Americans to war in Iraq to help his former employer, military contractor Halliburton, make money… After his comments were repeatedly condemned by conservatives, the Kentucky GOP senator says now that he “wasn’t intending really to impugn [Cheney’s] personal motives.”
Rand Paul Backtracks on Voter ID
Rand Paul wants to clarify recent criticism about the Republican focus on voter ID laws. Last week the senator said it was “wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” But speaking to Sean Hannity on Tuesday, Paul said his comments got wrongly overblown.
Rand Paul Backtracks on Government Shutdown
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Sunday that he doesn’t think it’s a good idea to shut down the government over the funding of Obamacare, but that he is hoping his party does it anyway… He was one of the fifteen senators to sign onto a letter vowing to block funding the health care law. But on Sunday, Paul told Fox News Sunday that, “I don’t think shutting down the government is a good idea.”
Rand Paul backtracks on Clinton criticism: Iraq war actually worst tragedy since 9/11
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) toned down his criticism of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday afternoon, admitting on CNN that the Iraq war was a greater tragedy than the attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Rand Paul Backtracks on Ferguson Comments
Just before departing for the rural town here where he performed charity eye surgeries over several days, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) caused a stir with an op-ed in Time about the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, calling for the police to be “demilitarized” and saying race skews the application of criminal justice … In an interview, he elaborated on his article and responded to critics on the right whom he said had misconstrued what he wrote.
Rand Paul backtracks on one-year deficit elimination pledge
Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul backtracked last week on his pledge to erase the federal budget deficit in a year, instead offering several options that he said could get it done within five… Conway’s campaign pounced on Paul’s comments. Conway spokeswoman Allison Haley said Paul refuses to offer “a straight answer on his secret plans to balance the budget in a year,” and now is “waffling on the amount of time it will take.”
Rand Paul Backtracks on His College Degree
Speaking at a conference last Thursday, Paul twice said he had a college degree in biology… Paul attended Baylor University in the 1980s, but left without a degree. Nonetheless, he was accepted at Duke University’s highly regarded medical school, where he earned a degree.
On Marriage Equality, Rand Paul Raises Bestiality, Then Backtracks
Sen. Rand Paul made a remark yesterday about same-sex marriage paving the path for marriage between humans and nonhumans, but he quickly backtracked on it, with an aide characterizing it as “sarcasm.”
Rand Paul Reverses Course on the Civil Rights Act of 1964
… tonight on The Rachel Maddow Show, newly minted Kentucky Rebublican senatorial candidate Rand Paul refused to say whether or not he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964… [a day later] I guess his campaign has enough sense to realize that his view on defending the ‘rights’ of private businesses to discriminate wasn’t an electoral winner [and issued a statement backing the law.]
Look, I’d be perfectly backing Paul — as Trevor Loudon suggests — as a Secretary of the Treasury under Ted Cruz.
But Paul’s mouth is a loose cannon and bound to get another Democrat President elected in 2016 during the heat of a campaign. Sorry, that’s just reality.
The Faustian Pact Between Obama And Iran
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
As the Democrats scream “Traitor!” and are off on another black is white, up is down tirade after the letter signed by 47 US Senators, all Republicans, was sent to Iran pointing out the minor detail that any agreement made between Obama and Iran without approval by the Senate is unconstitutional, Obama readies a deal nevertheless that he claims he will explain to America after it has been reached. How very dictatorial. How very suicidal for America and Israel.
Let’s get this straight… the traitors here are Barack Obama and any on the Marxist Left who cut a deal with Iran for nuclear capabilities without Congressional approval, by skirting constitutional law and by seeking UN intervention. You don’t get to redefine ‘treason’ as you see fit. I think you have the words ‘patriot’ and ‘traitor’ confused. The first rule of treason is to call the other guy a traitor. You see the true treasonous responses in President Obama’s own reply to the letter which encouraged all this loose talk about treason. “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran,” he told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.” And what would be an act of treachery without the Queen of Transparency, Hillary Clinton, who held a press conference ostensibly to explain why she hid her work product at the State Department and then made similar statements. Although no one asked her about the GOP letter, she gave her opinion: “Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians, or harmful to commander-in-chief in the middle of high stakes international diplomacy.” Typical Leftist bull crap – blaming those who are trying to save the Republic as being in cahoots with the Iranians when it is so blatantly the other way around. Spoken with a true forked tongue. The Marxists even stooped to calling Tom Cotton, “Tehran Tom.” How very Orwellian to brand someone with that moniker who went to Harvard Law School and enlisted in the US Army to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then you have John Kerry chiming in. His reaction was one of “utter disbelief” that these rogue Senators would go behind Obama’s back during talks with Iran. And the chorus of “treason” was shrilled even louder after Kerry’s proclamation. They seem to have forgotten that some of their own (including Kerry, as a junior Senator) have met with enemy foreign leaders in defiance of a president of the other party on many occasions, as Kenneth Timmerman points out. In an exchange with Marco Rubio, Kerry said he had shared details of the negotiations with the Saudis and other Sunni allies, but that he wouldn’t do the same with Congress. So, our leaders are to be kept fully in the dark until the deal is set, but they’ll gladly share info with foreign, and some would say ‘enemy’, states. How comforting.
The White House on Saturday wrote a letter warning US senators to withhold legislation that would “likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, the Huffington Post reported.
More from the Huffington Post:
The letter, written by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), reiterates a veto threat of the bill, while insisting that Congress will have a say in reviewing and affecting the ultimate outcome. But in far more detailed and foreboding terms than normal, McDonough lays out the administration’s concerns should Corker’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 end up becoming law.
“Put simply,” McDonough wrote, “it would potentially make it impossible to secure international cooperation for additional sanctions, while putting at risk the existing multilateral sanctions regime.”
It comes after months of Congress trying to insert itself into the negotiations between Iran, the U.S. and five partner countries. While the White House maintains it is nearing an agreement that will ensure Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, lawmakers have insisted that President Barack Obama is prepared to sign a “bad deal” that will leave too much of Iran’s nuclear facilities intact, allowing it to covertly develop a nuclear weapon. These concerns have been echoed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, against the wishes of the White House, delivered a contentious speech on the House floor, warning that the current deal will “all but guarantee” Iran nuclear weapons.
Things came to a head on Monday after nearly every Republican senator signed a letter warning Iran’s leaders that Congress approves international treaties, and that any agreement that fails to come before it could be quickly overturned. The White House decried the letter as inappropriate.
“The Administration’s request to the Congress is simple: let us complete the negotiations before the Congress acts on legislation,” McDonough continued in his Saturday letter to Corker. “We understand that Congress will make its own determinations about how to respond, but we do not believe that the country’s interests are served by congressional attempts to weigh in prematurely on this sensitive and consequential ongoing international negotiation aimed at achieving a goal that we all share: using diplomacy to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”
That’s exactly ass backwards and they know it. And it’s disingenuous. That is akin to saying shut up, sit down and do as you are told. Does that sound like a Constitutional Republic to you? That sounds like Moscow to me.
Giddy up, because here comes the UN:
Addressing the Republican Senators who signed the letter, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif warned that a “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor…
“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”
Zarif went on to reveal details of the agreement that the Obama Administration has so far kept from Congress.
His statement emphasized “that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result[s] in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.”
Let me spell that out: The Obama administration has told Congress that it won’t submit the nuclear agreement with Iran for Congressional approval, but now Zarif is saying that it will be submitted to the United Nations, to form the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution, presumably aimed at lifting UN sanctions on Iran.
Americans don’t give a flying crap about Iran’s proclaimed international law. Obama will do the dastardly deal though, I have no doubt. This is the same overreach he is using to grant Amnesty. But constitutional law trumps international law here in the US, whether Obama likes it or not. America is not beholding to the UN… she answers to her founding documents and to her citizenry. Not to a king, dictator, pontiff or whatever the hell Obama sees himself as. And no matter how much Iran huffs and puffs, if a truly conservative leader is elected next time around (and we still exist), he will assuredly scrap that agreement.
From The Washington Free Beacon:
The Iranian government is urging the United States to go straight to the United Nations to finalize any agreement reached in the coming weeks regarding Tehran’s contested nuclear program without seeking congressional approval.
Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister and top negotiator, suggested in a recent interview that the U.N. Security Council should be responsible for approving any agreement reached between Western powers and Tehran over its nuclear program, a proposal that the Obama administration entertained on Thursday.
The State Department argues that a nonbinding agreement with Iran—one that would not be subject to congressional oversight or approval—could be more enforceable due to the removal of opposition by a majority of Republican lawmakers to a deal.
Iran’s backing of a U.N.-approved deal came just days before State Department officials expressed reserved openness to the idea and revealed that they are currently working on a plan with other Security Council members to ease sanctions on Tehran.
Iran is claiming out and out victory over this. Anyone surprised over that? Not me. Iran is getting absolutely everything they want, with virtually no concessions. Iran has been relentless… if they get caught, they simply take one step back and then go right back to their dirty work, figuring no one is watching. So far, that has worked splendidly for them. Obama will probably lift financial sanctions in exchange for a ‘promise’ from Iran to not build a nuclear bomb. That promise will come and will mean nothing. Lucy with a turban will hold the nuclear football and Charlie Brown’s America will wind up on their back once more. Suckers.
Iran has just unveiled a new long-range cruise missile in Tehran. Very soon now, they will have nuclear weapons. And we are cutting faux deals with the devil. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described his country’s diplomacy with the United States as an active “jihad” that is just as significant to Tehran’s advancement as the slew of new weapons and missiles showcased by the Islamic Republic’s military. The Faustian pact between Obama and Iran will not only ensure a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, it will usher in full on war, with Israel and the US in the cross hairs. And this time, everyone will have nukes. Tell me again, if Obama was working for the enemy (in this case Iran), would he be doing anything differently? Nope.