Conservative Organizations Say “NO” to Candidates Who Say “NO” to Family Values

Written by IllinoisReview.com

Republican candidates who support abortion and same-sex marriage won’t be getting any love from pro-family groups in the upcoming election. CitizenLink, Family Research Council Action and the National Organization for Marriage have teamed up to urge voters not to support U.S. House candidates Carl DeMaio in California and Richard Tisei in Massachusetts as well as U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby in Oregon.

“The undersigned organizations… will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots for them in the November election,” the groups wrote in a letter to Republican leaders. “While we acknowledge that a national party must accommodate varying points of view on matters of prudence, we also believe a party must stand for certain core principles that it expects its candidates to defend.”

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action, said the party needs to stay true to its principles and platform.

“Some in the Republican elite have been pushing the GOP to abandon social issues, even though issues like marriage and life have been consistently embraced by the electorate,” he said. “In DeMaio, Tisei and Wehby, we have candidates who seem intent on alienating the Republican base by pushing on social issues in exactly the wrong direction.”

The letter was sent to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and every GOP member of Congress.

“A clear majority of Republicans support traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life,” said Tom Minnery, president of CitizenLink. “We’re disappointed that the party’s candidates are running from these fundamental Republican principles.”

Read the full leter HERE


This article was originally posted at the IllinoisReview.com blog.

Unpublished Letters Reveal Close Hillary-Alinsky Link

 

15263ac4588739cc5536dd14f90eb22f

Written by Chad Groening

An author and political activist says the Democratic Party is clearly controlled by far left-wing radicals who want to create a one-party state.

Recently The Washington Free Beacon obtained some unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and 1960s-era left-wing radical Saul Alinsky. The letters revealed a close relationship between Clinton and Alinsky, who wrote Rules for Radicals, a controversial guide to the ends-justifies-means approach to power and wealth redistribution through community activism.

David Horowitz is a former member of the communist party who has now become a conservative and is the founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

“The aim of Democrats is to create a one-party state,” he says. “These are totalitarians. They think they know what’s good for everybody and they’re going to force you to follow their plan – and their means are deceptive. Hillary is part of this. It’s all the Alinsky strategy. You don’t telegraph your agendas.”

The author contends Democrats are working hard to build a permanent majority of dependency voters.

“Their defense of voter fraud is just another aspect of that,” he tells OneNewsNow, referring to the party’s general opposition to voter ID laws. “They want illiterate people. They want people who are here illegally to vote. They’ve already got them included in ObamaCare. I mean it’s disgusting what they’re doing.”

Horowitz admits he doesn’t understand why the Republican Party isn’t hysterical about what the Democratic Party continues to do to America.


This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Loch Ness Socialism

By Bill Whittle

The Loch Ness Monster is a “cryptid” — something rumored to exist but without actual proof. The Socialist Utopia of the progressives is a cryptid too. In his latest Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why Good Socialism, like the Loch Ness Monster, is a giant, air-breathing creature that (conveniently!) NEVER COMES UP FOR AIR.


 

Federal Judge Envisions ‘Rape License’ for ‘Right to Rape’

Judge-Richard-Posner

Written by Matt Barber

Judge Richard Posner, a federal judge with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, recently become a hero to the pro-”gay marriage” left when, by way of a “legal analysis” free from the troublesome constraints of logic, case precedent, biology, tradition and reality in general, he managed to somehow divine a long-hidden constitutional “right” for two dudes to get “married.” “How can tradition be a reason for anything?” an incredulous Posner demanded last month of attorneys defending marriage protection amendments in both Wisconsin and Indiana.

It would seem that Posner’s contempt for tradition extends to all things sexual, up to and including the puritanical presupposition that it’s always wrong for a man to rape a woman. This idea, according to Posner in his 2011 book “Economic Analysis of the Law” (8th edition), is evidently an equally archaic tradition that, like the institution of natural marriage, needs a significant overhaul.

Posner’s suggestion? Perhaps it’s time the government begin issuing “rape licenses” (I kid you not) since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the “right to rape,” for some men at least, “exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain.”

On page 216, Posner, a Reagan appointee considered “conservative” in “progressive” circles, writes, “Rape bypasses the market in sexual relations (marital and otherwise) in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and it should therefore be forbidden.”

OK, while this is an oddly detached and clinical start to a discussion on rape, it is, so far, not entirely unreasonable. Posner would have been well served to stop here. But, and much like those who are the subject of his rape analysis, he does not stop.

“But,” continues Posner – I didn’t know there were any “buts” when it comes to rape – “But some rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that the woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is no market substitute … and it could be argued therefore that, for them, rape is not a purely coercive transfer and should not be punished if the pleasure to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay – though not to the victim – for the right to rape) exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain. There are practical objections [No, really? Practical objections to rape?] … [b]ut the fact that any sort of rape license is even thinkable [what kind of bigoted rape-o-phobe would suggest otherwise?] … is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory.

“What generates the possibility of a rape license,” he persists (hold off, fellas, they’re not available yet), “is the fact that the rapist’s utility is weighted the same as his victim’s utility. If it were given a zero weight in the calculus of costs and benefits, a rape license could not be efficient. The only persuasive basis for such a weighting, however, would be a moral principle different from efficiency.”

And herein lies the rub. We all know what Posner thinks about “moral principles.” He’s a moral relativist. There are no moral principles, most especially “traditional” moral principles. I mean, “How can tradition be a reason for anything?”

But wait, there’s more. You gals trapped in one of those “traditional” marriages needn’t fret. Posner’s got you covered, too. “Marital rape?” C’mon, is there really such a thing?

“In a society that prizes premarital virginity and marital chastity [I know, sheesh, right?], the cardinal harm from rape is the destruction of those goods and is not inflicted by marital rape,” he writes.

“… The nature of the harm to the wife raped by her husband is a little obscure,” he continues. “If she is beaten or threatened, these of course are real harms inflicted by an ordinary assault and battery. Especially since the goods of virginity and of chastity are not endangered, the fact of her having intercourse one more time with a man with whom she has had intercourse many times before seems peripheral to the harm actually inflicted but is critical to making the offense rape.

“Most of the reasons for not making marital rape a crime have lost force with time,” he laments.

Of late a fanciful meme has taken root among the “progressive” left. It’s one that imagines ours as a patriarchal “rape culture,” which fosters an environment wherein women are systematically raped with impunity (especially on our nation’s college campuses).

Apparently, the solution is for chicks to pierce and tattoo themselves, declare “slut pride” and parade nude in “slut walks” across the globe. But that’s an outlier.

I finally get it. Posner is the “rape culture.” I wonder how these mouth-frothing “marriage equality” lefties will react to his permissive approach to rape. In much the same way, I suppose, they reacted to myriad accusations of sexual harassment and assault lodged against Bill “depends-on-what-is-is” Clinton. With total silence and self-serving hypocrisy.

None of this should surprise anyone. Richard Posner is a faithful disciple of Alfred Kinsey, the anti-science, anti-morality left’s sexual messiah. Kinsey was a bug doctor turned “sexologist.” Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science. His research also “found” that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”

Starting to see what makes Posner click? “His Honor” is a dyed-in-the-wool Kinseyite.

Though Kinsey’s “research” has long since been completely debunked and discredited, the elitist left, to include Judge Posner, even still relies on it to push its own sexual anarchist worldview. Writing in his 1992 book, “Sex and Reason,” for instance, Posner gushed, “The two Kinsey reports remain the high-water mark of descriptive sexology.” He calls Kinsey the “central figure” in the “scholarly science” of sexology.

Raped? Well, suck it up, walk it off and congratulate yourself.

You’ve reached Posner’s “high-water mark.”


 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber). 

 

Dr. Ben Carson: ‘Likelihood Is Strong’ That He Will Run for President in 2016

ben-carson

Written by Leonardo Blair

Celebrated neurosurgeon and conservative darling Dr. Benjamin Carson declared Monday that the “likelihood is strong” that he will make a presidential run in 2016.

Carson told conservative commentator Hugh Hewiitt on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that if he sees strong support for his candidacy, he will give it his all to win the Republican nomination and the presidential election.

“I know you like debating. And so, the question arises: Will we be seeing you on the presidential debate circuit next year that the Republicans are organizing for those who want the nomination of the party?” Hewitt asked Carson during the interview.

Carson replied:

I think the chances are reasonably good of that happening. I’m waiting for a few more months. I want to make sure that it’s clearly something my fellow Americans want me to do. And I’m also waiting to see what the results are in November, because if the people indicate that they truly do want a nation that is for, of and by the people, then I, along with many other people, would be willing to give it everything we possibly have.

The Christian Post reported last month that the 62-year-old Republican has formed a political action committee under the name of One Nation which will act as a tool to provide campaign funding for Carson and other like-minded congressional candidates. Carson selected Houston business tycoon Terry Giles to run the PAC. Giles could be his campaign manager should he decide to run.

When asked if he felt like he had the experience to go up against more seasoned politicians like U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Carson quipped: “I’ve been talking all of my life. And I will continue to talk. You know, I will never be a politician. I will tell you that right off the bat.”

Carson then reiterated that he will not be making an official announcement on his final decision until May 2015, and insists the timeline will not be too late.

“I have a lot of consultants. One of the things I’ve learned is you need to talk to a lot of people. The Bible says in the multitude of consulars is safety, and you look at historical things, and you make sure you have all your I’s dotted and your T’s crossed, and we’re doing that,” Carson asserted.

“Unless the American people indicate in November that they like big government intervention in every part of their lives, I think the likelihood is strong [I will run for president],” he said.

When asked who he believes will be his base supporters, Carson said:

“I hope it’s going to be that individual who loves America, who understands that we should place the Constitution on the top shelf, that we should not pick and choose who the winners and losers are in our society, and that we shouldn’t pick and choose which laws we want to enforce, and those people who understand that the person who has the most to do with what happens to you in life is you.”


This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com website.

The Failing Minimum Wage Scam

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Written by Michael Medved

The New York Times described a disappointing Washington rally for Democratic Senate candidates pushing the slogan, “America Needs a Raise.”

Only a few dozen attended the big event and the Times concluded: “The Democrats’ strategy of making an increase in the minimum wage a midterm election rallying cry has been drowned out by world events. The party continues to talk about it, but it appears that few are listening.”

While threats from ISIS, Ebola and Russia certainly dominate the news, the minimum wage was bound to flop as an election issue in any event. Only 2.6 percent of all workers are earning the legal minimum wage—and a sudden, unearned raise for them would tighten business budgets and make it harder for the 97.4 percent who already earn above minimums to win their own raises.

The Democratic minimum wage scam would favor new hires and less productive employees at the expense of everyone else.


This article was originally posted at the MichaelMedved.com blog.

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com